And now for the film that almost killed off the Bond franchise: 1989's Licence to Kill. Ever since the series started with Dr. No in 1962 through 1989, no more than two years went by without a Bond movie. For the record, the films came out yearly though 1965's Thunderball. After that they went to a bi-yearly schedule that continued for the next 24 years.

After Kill, however, 1991 came and went without any signs of Bond. And 1992. And 1993. And 1994. Finally, the series came back to life in 1995 with a new Bond in the form of Pierce Brosnan and renewed popularity.

Lucky for Timothy Dalton, because otherwise it's likely that he would have gone down as the man who killed the franchise. That designation probably would have been unfair, as the series had become somewhat moribund before that point and it needed a break so it could regroup. Still, perceptions are perceptions, and that idea might have stuck.

Here's the question of the day: was Kill a piece of work worthy of destroying such a successful series? God no! It's actually a pretty exciting and stimulating flick. Based simply on the merits of this film on its own, I find it mysterious that the series faltered as it did. Kill is easily one of the best non-Connery Bond films.

Actually, I'll go farther than that: it's one of the best Bond films period. It's somewhat amazing to me that a topnotch picture like Kill tanked at the box office while a much weaker effort such as Moonraker raked in the bucks.

Two main theories have surrounded the financial failure of Kill: 1) during a summer crowded with many other "A" titles, it got lost in the shuffle; and 2) audiences didn't like the new grittier take on Bond, especially after they'd gotten used to the light and cartoony Moore version for so many years.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to go with theory 2 than the first one. Sometimes movies do miss their audience because they're released in a "heavy traffic" period, but those films don't have the publicity and the name recognition of Bond. For a Bond picture to fail, that's a public referendum on the movie itself, the series as a whole, or both.

I think "both" makes sense here. Dalton never seemed to grab the public's imagination as Bond, and audiences may have grown weary of seeing a new Bond film every two years. That was an awfully long string of movies, and audiences just seemed to be worn out by the series.

Whatever the speculation, nothing changes the fact that Kill is a pretty terrific movie. It boasts one of the more interesting plots and some of the best action of the series. I especially enjoyed the film's climactic sequence as Bond chases our villain Sanchez (Robert Davi) in a truck. While the action is usually good in Bond movies, it sometimes seems ho-hum just because we've seen so much of it; I enjoy it and appreciate the work that went into it, but I rarely feel that true adrenaline rush. This wasn’t an issue during Kill though; it's a fantastically exciting movie, and the ending segment tops if off nicely.

The plot itself differs from the usual Bond fare in that it's one of those "this time, it's personal" deals. Bond sets off on his own vendetta to off Sanchez and does so without the support of his organization. In actuality, that's really the only way the storyline differs from most Bonds flicks. Once he embarks on his mission, Bond acts the same way he usually does. Still, knowing that he's something of a fugitive adds an edge that provides a little more spark than we'd normally see.

Speaking of edge, Dalton definitely plays Bond as a grimmer, more detached presence than had any previous actors. While I liked this movie, I'm not terribly sure I cared for Dalton. I do appreciate the darker side in the character - especially after all the silliness of the Moore years – but Dalton often seems very forced to me. Although I don't care for the foppishness of Moore's work, he did at least make the character his own and he always seemed to inhabit the role naturally. It didn't seem like acting when Moore - or Connery, for that matter - did Bond.

Dalton, on the other hand, doesn't come across that way. It's not that he's a wussy-boy like Moore who's trying to act tough; the guy has a natural grittiness that serves him well. It's just that he never seems very comfortable in the part. It's really the more suave side of Bond that he can't do, and that's a problem. While Dalton isn't bad in the role, the definitive aspects of what made Bond Bond lack in his portrayal; he never seems to be the world-beating lady-killer and sophisticate that we know and love.

Many indicate that Dalton's portrayal hearkens back to Ian Fleming's original concept of the character, and that may be true; I've not read any of the Bond books, so I don't know how they differ from the films. However, it seems strange that elsewhere we hear mention that Moore supposedly is true to the character and how Fleming wasn't keen on the more thuggish side of Connery's portrayal. This sentiment appears to have some validity since I have heard that Fleming originally wanted David Niven to play the role, and Niven was much closer to the pansy-boy side of the street that Moore walked than he was to Connery's bad-ass avenue.

Maybe I'll read the books someday and formulate my own opinion of which Bond was truest to Fleming's vision. However, by 1989, this point was almost totally irrelevant. It didn't matter what Fleming had wanted in the character by then because the concept of "James Bond" was so ingrained on the public psyche. If a portrayal of Bond didn't match that idea then it didn't matter who said it was accurate; it wasn't going to work.

So whether or not Dalton hewed closely to the creator's vision of Bond, I still think he only did half of the character well. I liked his toughness, but I didn't buy him as a smooth, suave, and sophisticated guy. Nonetheless, I don't think his work hurt the film in any way, especially because the emphasis remained on the harsher aspects of Bond's character. The elements of the story that required the debonair gentleman were few enough that Dalton's hamfistedness didn't make a negative impact.

As villainous drug lord Sanchez, Robert Davi is really quite good. He differs from most Bond baddies in that there's a much greater element of realism to the character than we usually see. Clearly he's a nasty piece of work, but he's more complex than the typical monomaniacal Bond perpetrator. Davi is able to play both sides of the street well; he makes Sanchez cruel enough so that we look forward to his comeuppance, but we also buy into the character as someone who honestly values loyalty over money. Would we be able to say that about Goldfinger or Largo? Nope, and while they are good characters for a Bond film, they definitely seem flatter than does Sanchez.

Of course, whether the greater subtlety in Sanchez is a good thing or not goes back to what one believes a grittier, more realistic Bond is a good thing. Whatever one's inclination, I think the change works well here.

(One acting footnote that involves Davi: in Kill, one of the DEA agents who initially apprehends him is player by Grand L. Bush. The previous year, Bush and Davi appeared together as FBI agents Johnson and Johnson in Die Hard. I have no idea if this reunion was a coincidence, but I found it amusing.)

The filmmakers also would like us to believe that Carey Lowell's take on the "Bond girl" through her character of CIA agent Pam Bouvier is a departure from previous Bond females, but that's only partly true. The typical conception of these characters is that they're gorgeous but helpless and that they need to have Bond come along and save them.

It's surprising how often that's not true. For example, Pussy Galore in Goldfinger was more than able to take care of herself. Actually, she was truly the hero in that film, since Bond only indirectly saved the day. (He won her over, which then provoked her to call the authorities and stop Goldfinger plot - Bond himself did little to avert Goldfinger's crime.) Melina in For Your Eyes Only also didn't need Bond to save her. However, she pulled his bacon out of the fryer on a few occasions.

So the strong Bond heroine is not without precedent. Lowell seems spunkier than most and less overtly sexy, which is good and bad, I suppose. Actually, it really didn't matter much to me at all. She's a decent actress and she pulls off the role pretty well, but she didn't make much of an impact on me. Perhaps there's something to be said for the glamorous Bond babe after all.

Lupe (Talisa Soto) - the other lead female role - fits the typical concept of the Bond girl to a "T." She's amazingly sexy, and she's almost completely helpless. Soto's quite a looker, but she can't act to save her life. Wooden and flat Bond actresses are nothing new, so she doesn't mar the movie, but she's still a disappointment.

One nice surprise about Kill is the high degree to which "Q" (Desmond Llewelyn) appears in the film. Unlike his usual brief bit, he's actually an integral character in this picture, and it's a lot of fun to have him around. It's probably a good thing that his participation is usually slight, since there's not much to the character, but this one semi-starring role is a blast. It's just another entertaining aspect of a fine film

I think it's important for me to stress the fun side of Kill because it's built up such a reputation as the "serious" Bond. Yes, it is darker than the others, and Dalton can't play the glib aspects of the character well, but the film still manages to inject some shots of pure entertainment at times. One thing I appreciated about the movie is that although it provides some "tongue in cheek" bits, they don't seem heavy-handed. For example, during the truck chase, some automatic gunfire ricochets off the assembly of the cab. The sound designers tuned the "clings" and "clangs" so they replicated the Bond theme song. It’s a subtle bit of silliness, and that makes it work.

Little touches like that help allow Licence to Kill to prosper. While not usually regarded as one of the better Bonds, I think it combines gritty action with style to create a terrific picture.

Licence to Kill appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. Not too many concerns arose during this fine presentation.

Sharpness was usually solid. A few wide shots looked a bit soft, but the majority of the flick looked fine. The flick mostly came across as concise and accurate. I noticed no signs of moiré effects or jagged edges, and edge enhancement was minimal. Source flaws appeared absent, as the folks behind the transfer cleaned it up quite nicely.

Though they always looked good, colors came to the forefront in daytime exteriors. The hues looked fine across the board, but they were particularly good in those shots. The tones seemed lively and dynamic. Blacks were also deep and rich, while shadows showed fine clarity and delineation. Only the minor softness knocked the presentation down to a “B+”.

The DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio of Kill presented a strong soundfield. The five channels offered a lot of useful information and involved us in the action. The front speakers got the most use, as they gave us very good spread and delineation. The surrounds got into the flick well during the action scenes. Elements zipped around the room and formed a fine sense of the various pieces.

The quality of the audio was very good. Speech sounded clear and natural. The music was solid, with strong fidelity and dynamic range. Effects showed just a smidgen of distortion during some gunfight sequences, but they usually were vivid and accurate. Given the movie’s age, this was a very satisfying soundtrack.

How did the picture and audio of this Blu-ray Disc compare to the 2006 Ultimate Edition DVD? Both discs offered similar audio, and the visuals were a lot alike as well. I’d be surprised to learn that the Blu-ray came from a different transfer than the DVD. This meant the Blu-ray offered the usual improved resolution inherent in the format but it didn’t blow away the old DVD, which offered pretty nice picture itself.

Expect almost all the same extras from the Ultimate Edition. First we find two separate audio commentaries. The first comes from director John Glen and actors Carey Lowell, Desmond Llewelyn, Benicio Del Toro, Robert Davi and David Hedison. Each sits separately in interviews edited together for this non-screen-specific piece. They discuss their impressions of various actors and other participants, locations and shooting challenges, the characters and aspects of the performances, the opening credits, the score and songs, and post-production.

That’s a good selection of subjects, and the commentary often proves informative. However, we get a surprising amount of dead air given the format and number of participants, and a lot of the track gets devoted to basic praise for the various filmmakers. This is especially notable during the commentary’s first half; it gets weightier as it progresses. Despite these problems, there’s enough good material here to make the track worthwhile.

The second commentary presents producer and co-writer Michael Wilson, production designer Peter Lamont, director of photography Alec Mills, and visual effects supervisor John Richardson, special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, production buyer Ron Quelch, assistant art director Neil Lamont, second unit director Arthur Wooster, advertising consultant Don Smolen, stunt coordinator Paul Weston, and stuntmen Simon Crane, Jake Lombard and BJ Worth. It uses the same edited, non-screen-specific format as the first track. Unsurprisingly, it mostly deals with nuts and bolts subjects. We learn a little about story and script but largely address stunts and action sequences, various forms of effects, sets and locations, production design elements, cinematography, working with the various collaborators, and the general challenges that accompany making a Bond flick.

Expect the same positives and negatives as the first track. Praise decreases a bit but remains a minor drag on the piece. There’s also too much dead air, particularly around the point in the film when “Q” arrives; we find a major gap at that juncture. This is still a good track, but it’s not a great one.

Over on DVD Two, we open with five elements under Declassified: MI6 Vault. Nine Deleted Scenes fill a total of 10 minutes, 10 seconds. We find “Sharkey Arrives” (0:27), “Bond and Sharkey Follow Yacht” (1:05), “Bond in Hotel Room” (1:14), “Cash Transaction” (0:41), “Bond in Isthmus” (1:18), “’Bienvenidos Mis Amigos’” (0:59), “Bond Returns to Casino” (1:08), “Bond Captured by Hong Kong Narcotics Agents” (1:52), and “Boat Ride” (1:23). Some interesting material appears here, but don’t expect anything particularly memorable. I’d be hard-pressed to cite pieces that should have ended up in the final cut.

The scenes come with introductions from director Glen. He gives us info about shooting the pieces and occasionally lets us know why he cut them. His remarks aren’t great but they add some decent details.

A featurette called Bond ‘89 runs 11 minutes and 42 seconds. Introduced by Michael Wilson, it includes interviews from the set. We hear from Weston, Worth, Davi, Lowell, actor Timothy Dalton and producer Cubby Broccoli. They look at Dalton’s approach to Bond, the work of director Glen, the film’s characters and reflections on Bond, locations, stunts, and the familial feel of the Bond crew. The immediacy of this program helps since it gives us the participants during the film’s creation. Don’t expect tremendous insight, however, as the piece remains pretty pedestrian.

Additional info about the director comes via On Set with John Glen. This nine-minute and 26-second piece gives us behind the scenes footage narrated by the director. His remarks provide some perspective about what we see, but the clips themselves are the highlight, as they present nice glimpses of the shoot.

To find out more from the production designer, we head to the five-minute and 22-second On Location with Peter Lamont. The production designer chats about the material as we watch location scouts. The short includes good glimpses of the process.

Finally, Ground Check with Corky Fornoff goes for four minutes, 46 seconds. The vintage piece presents aerial coordinator Fornoff as he shows us elements related to his work. I like the glimpse of the Bond dummy used for plane shots and find this to offer a fun program.

With that we head to the *007 Mission Control Interactive Guide. This splits into components under seven different headings: “007”, “Women”, “Allies”, “Villains”, “Mission Combat Manual”, “Q Branch”, and “Exotic Locations”. An odd form of “greatest hits”, this simply presents a few selected scenes that match the topics.

One of the only interesting elements comes from the presentation of the opening credits without text (2:52). “Locations” (3:41) also gives us a narrated set of clips. Samantha Bond chats over the scenes and tells us about the locations. That makes it more useful than the others since they just show snippets from the final film. The rest of the set is a waste of time.

Heading to Mission Dossier, we begin with Inside Licence to Kill and it runs for 31 minutes and 59 seconds. It presents movie clips, behind the scenes shots, and interviews. We hear from Glen, Dalton, Lowell, Davi, Wilson, Peter Lamont, Hedison, Del Toro, Neil Lamont, Corbould, Quelch, Mills, Lombard, Richardson, Crane and Wooster.

This documentary does a fairly nice job of covering the basic details, but the participation of Dalton is missed; the only interview appearance he makes is an archival clip from the time during which the movie was made. Honestly, I'd be curious to know why he wasn't involved. I mean, I understand when Connery doesn't pop up for these projects - he's a huge star and he's also probably sick of the whole Bond thing - but I don't have any idea if Dalton has negative feelings about his stint as 007. Anyway, the program's good but not exceptional.

A four-minute and 56-second production featurette from the time of the film's release provides a brief overview of the movie; it's not fantastic, but it's better than the usual puff pieces that we see passed off as "featurettes."

A second, more unusual featurette appears here as well. It's a nine-minute and 30-second piece produced by Kenworth Trucks to highlight their involvement in the production; all of the trucks used during the movie's climax were made by Kenworth. It's done in a utilitarian way, as one would expect of a promotional job such as this, but it's very entertaining because it focuses on an area that we normally wouldn't hear discussed. It's a unique look at a more hidden side of filmmaking.

Two music videos show up here: one for Gladys Knight's title song, and another for Patti LaBelle's version of "If You Asked Me To". Knight's video follows the standard MO for such productions; scenes from the film are intercut with shots of Knight (in a tux, ala Bond!) delivers the song and some babes idly cavort. It's a decent but somewhat dull video, although the song itself isn't bad.

"If You Asked Me To" is a song you've probably heard, although not by LaBelle; Celine Dion had a hit with it in 1992. The tune is yet another crap-tacular piece of balladic dreck from schlockmeister extraordinaire Diane Warren. In good hands, her songs can work decently (such as Aerosmith's "I Don't Want To Miss A Thing") but usually good hands don't touch Warren's songs; I saw a website that listed everyone who'd ever performed one of her tunes, and it was a long and abysmal affair.

Patti LaBelle definitely doesn't qualify as a pair of good hands. She displays her usual overbearing brand of emotive silliness as she bludgeons the song to death. The video itself omits any reference to the film; it's just a long clip of LaBelle delivering the song with far too much artificial emotion as she seems about to collapse under the weight of one of her then-trademark absurd hairstyles. Bad song, bad singer, bad video.

Under Ministry of Propaganda, we see two theatrical trailers. Both of these are actually quite good. They provide yet another reason why the financial failure of Licence seems strange.

In the Image Database, we get an extensive still photo supplement. The section for Kill includes about 110 photos. These pictures are presented under different chapter headings; there are 11 of these in all, and these offer a nicely efficient way to manage the pictures so that you don't have to wade through tons of dreck to later review one that you like. As always, I'm not a huge fan of these still archives, but this one is well executed.

Does this set lose anything from the UE? It drops a nice booklet but that’s it. All of the disc-based materials repeat here.

Licence to Kill is a winner. The film offers one of the best Bonds ever made, a fact that's become sadly obscured by the picture's box office death. The Blu-ray offers very good picture and audio along with a mix of interesting extras. I like the movie very much and recommend this release.

Should folks who already own the Ultimate Edition DVD get the Blu-ray? If they really like the movie. The Blu-ray tightened up the DVD to a decent degree, but it didn’t offer enormous improvements in that area. Both audio and extras remained consistent between the two. I’m happy I have this Blu-ray, but $34.98 is a lot to pay for its moderate step up in picture.

To rate this film visit the Ultimate Edition review of LICENCE TO KILL