Timothy Dalton best bond
Eagleman
Posts: 26MI6 Agent
Re-watching the Bond recently I've decided Timothy Dalton is the most alike the Bond from Fleming's novels. I just wish he'd have taken the role when first offered to him for On Her Maj Secret Service. That way we'd have been spared Lazenby & Moore. Plus Dalton would have had a fare go at James Bond. What a shame it never happend. :007)
Comments
I can't say that I agree with you as I am a huge Moore fan and Dalton is my least favourite Bond. If my ideal world existed, Dalton would never have played Bond. Additionally, if Lazenby didn't make OHMSS, I wish that Connery would have done it instead.
That said, there are many Dalton fans on this site. I think that myself and JFF are perhaps the most passionately anti-Dalton here,
As for Dalton, well he's 'my' Bond- I was the right age when he was in the role, but I don't think he's perfect. If there's one thing Craig's superficially similar Bond shows, it's that Bond needs to be arrogant and self-confident, and Tim never really projected that.
He was already past it at the point he first got the gig, a superannuated Saint.
For me, early Connery (Goldfinger/Thunderball) was the benchmark. I also liked Dalton, who sadly got a duff script, and Brosnan, who was probably my favourite.
I haven't seen Daniel Craig yet, but will remedy this at the weekend.
Well, yeah- that's what made it fun! He's so sexy that even the girls on the lawn in Moonraker can sense his sexiness when he's in a helicopter flying over them!
Pleasingly this sort of scene is brought back in Casino (although played less for laughs) when some sexy girls pass Bond and give him a smile at the Ocean Club
didnt care much for Moore in Die another day though
But Timothy Dalton will always be my number one. Brosnan was great and in a way I wish he'd have stayed on for a 5th film but they have got the right man in Daniel Craig I'm sure. :007)
It would be nice if Connery had done OHMSS and perhaps one more, for Dalton to take over the role. He would have been about 30 at the time?
Pierce could (in a better world) have taken the role next and been given better material than he got.
And if pigs could fly....
What happened happened, right?
It's a shame, really---CR would have been an excellent vehicle for him, but the planets were never aligned for him, IMRO.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not sure about DAF, but I agree Moore was terrible in Die Another Day. Barely made an impression ...
I would concur with what you meant though; Moore had barely scratched the surface of the part in LALD (much as I love the film itself).
As for Dalton, I have long felt he didn't really get the quality of film and scrip that he derserved. TLD felt quite drab compared to Moore's previous outings ... I rather like it because it felt quite pedestrian, but again Dalton had really had much of a chance to show us what he could do ...
As for LTK, Dalton had better opportunities to act, but the whole film felt more like an episode of Miami Vice with a RADA thesp trying to generate some depth. (My love of LTK is poorly known ...
anyhow, i kinda like things as they are
I'm not saying that other Bonds have not had value, but some were just pretty boys cast in a role. The acting in some of the films is pathetic, even if there are parts of the character that hold true.
In all honesty, some of the other Bonds HAVE done a good job on screen... but I still think Sean Connery has been best. He never had a muscle-bound build, nor a madel's face... but he fit the role. There were expressions in his eyes that showed a mind that was constantly working, as well as a casual nature in (pardon), using women for his purposes.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea of "using" women, but the nature fits with as much as I know of the stories... they were, after all, written before the era of political correctness.
Dalton simply lacked the charisma to pull the role off. He never seemed to be enjoying himself onscreen, was always cloudy and conflicted, and generally was not a guy you wanted to spend two hours with.
As Craig has demonstrated in CR, you can be gritty and cold in the role while also being charming and engaging. He's a bit of a *******--offhandedly remarking that he prefers married women ("it keeps things simple"), and retreating into the void where his heart should be when things get too emotionally frought. But he also exudes bad-boy charisma and sexiness and carries the film effortlessly.
Dalton, for all his superficial resemblance for the character and the aplomb wwith which he threw himself into the role, just lacked that special ingredient that makes an otherwise competent actor James Bond.
http://inhome.rediff.com/movies/2006/nov/21bond.htm
The most underrated James Bond ever
Mostly everyone seems to be warming up to rookie Daniel Craig, his near-flawless Casino Royale performance merely an indicator of things to come. But as always, when a new 007 surfaces, fans of the franchise begin to debate over which of his predecessors was the finest.
Actually, make that second-finest. Everyone agrees that Sean Connery is James Bond, his avatar proving to be such a compelling character that even writer Ian Fleming changed 007's parentage to reflect Connery's Scottish background in subsequent novels. Ever since 1962's Dr No, Connery and Bond go together like Aston Martins and martinis.
As for second place, the race is wide open. Even as Craig deservedly joins the fray, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan are the popular names. Mostly everyone shies away from George Lazenby's foray into MI-6, but the injustice lies in how Timothy Dalton, possibly the purest of all Bonds, remains criminally overlooked.
All right, I heard the outrage. But hear me out this time before scrolling rapidly down to leave a comment. Am I a Bond purist? It's hard to say. 007 fanatics can be those obsessing unrealistically over book-to-screen detail in a franchise that left the books alone eons ago; they can also be those meticulously quoting the most insane innuendo and little continuity errors. I'm neither, really. I cherish a collection of tattered Pan versions of the Bond novels, and, having seen each of the 20 films at least twice, can hold my own in a Bondgirl quiz. I love the books and the movies, realise how very different they are, and am admittedly far too traditional -- just like James Bond has always been.
And before we go on to talk about Timmy, let's quickly skim through the others, yes? Connery is The Man, a fact we all know and can't possibly even debate. His 007 blended style, seduction and ruthlessness in an iconic fashion that made us all stand before our mirrors, folding fingers into Berettas.
George Lazenby managed a couple of scenes well in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but was woefully miscast in a film with a cracking second half that could really have done with Sean. In totality, George was a blunder.
Moore was fabulous as an aristocrat, but honestly far too soft to ever be taken seriously as Bond. After two initial good films, he seemed to stop trying, playing to the gadget-loving galleries and for laughs. No one could carry off the outrageous lines Rog did, handsome enough to carry a lot off with a wink, but he outlasted his welcome completely, always more smirk than superspy.
Brosnan was a tragic joke. Too old when he began playing 007, the Remington Steele actor found himself in precariously politically correct territory. Trapped in the worse-written of all 007 plots, Pierce tried valiantly but was overshadowed by a Mission: Impossible like set of insubstantial films. There was no subtext, he played the part too straight, and was always an attractive actor trying to play Bond. His films took the series to their most forgettable low -- some of the awful earlier films are memorable because of sheer cheese. Brosnan, too internationalised to even be the one Brit we all loved, was unforgivably blah.
Now, to Dalton. By the time he got his turn as Bond, Rog had already reduced the character to a comic detective with his arching eyebrow as his greatest mission. The plots had gotten consistently ridiculous, and the time had come for the franchise to reinvent itself. In 1987's The Living Daylights, audiences were stunned to discover a very different James Bond. Truer than any to Ian Fleming's pages, Dalton's Bond was darker, more brooding, and his humour was wry. The film was a smash success, not only outgrossing Moore's last couple of films, but also topping American action blockbusters Die Hard and Lethal Weapon.
Bond fans, however, were confused. Growing up with the warm and cheeky Moore films and blatantly unfamiliar with the Fleming books, this gritty 007 didn't seem quite as right. Dalton's Bond could be cruel and callous, world-weary and a thinker, archaic and bleeding -- not just another superhero in a bowtie, with a fondness for double-entendre. He quipped, sure, but Dalton delivered his punchlines deadpan, as you'd expect from a tough guy.
His humour isn't usually as over-the-top, but only Connery could be that exaggerated as well as credible. Dalton brought considerable depth to the role, and while Rog fans might accuse him of lacking charm, it was just because he wasn't as overt. Don't believe the 'boring' tag till you see the athletic, rugged Dalton at work.
License To Kill is a Bond flop, and that's a shame. The film is James Bond redux, a lean and intense action thriller with lesser fat than 007 fans are used to. It isn't ridiculously about one man saving the world, it doesn't have a repetitive plot, and it's a complete back-to-basics film. Dalton is tough, dramatic and fiercely 007.
Back in 1989, a film where Bond quits the service was unthinkable. It's a film that defied the franchise valiantly, but was ahead of its time. Critics called it too renegade, and not Bond enough. But as a character, it's strikingly true to James. Watched today, in an age where even the Caped Crusader and the Dark Knight are going raw, it's a refreshingly fine and most underrated watch.
We all have our favourite Bonds. All us true believers swear by Connery, while some can't get over Roger, and a few even inexplicably manage to stand Pierce. What hurts, however, is that Dalton is almost always ignored by default. Most of those who balk at his very mention haven't even seen his films. Give him a fair chance, before writing him off.
All I ask is that you watch (or rewatch) his films, and rejoice in some fine Bondage.
I think he's way too harsh on Lazenby, Moore and especially Brosnan. For my money, they all gave perfectly valid interpretations and each brought something to the table. I very much doubt the series would have lasted this long if they were as bad as he claims.
But I agree that Dalton is a fine Bond and too often sadly overlooked. For my money TLD was just too pedestrian an adventure by Bond standards and LTK was just too much of a departure from the norm at that point in time. Dalton has shown in other roles that he can do it all: tough, humorous, romantic, vulnerable, and even arrogant. Too bad EON wasn't up to giving him a vehicle that really let him shine.
Oh, and somebody should tell this guy that the Caped Crusader and the Dark Knight are one and the same.
Actually I agree with you,especially about him being harsh on Brosnan. However, I posted the article because it is so rare that TD comes out on top !
Connery
Craig
Moore
Bronson
Dalton
Lazenby
Conney is simply Bond.
Personally, I am a little suprised, because while everyone is always bashing More (people seem to forget that if it wasn't for Moore, there might not have been a Dalton), I've always gotten the sense that Brosnan was generally respected.
Connery had everything a Bond should have - Charisma, toughness, sophistication, ruthlessness, intelligence, charm, and was very humorous. No other actor was able to project all of these attributes.
Sean Connery is James Bond.
Here is my list.
1. Connery
2. Dalton
3. Lazenby
4. Craig
5. Nelson
6. Sellers
7. Niven
8. Brosnan
9. Moore
Dalton's importance in the series history is quite large given that his era consists only of two films. Had Brosnan been cast in his place in 1986, the films would have more than likely kept a similar tone found in the Roger Moore films of the 1980's: films that want to take themselves seriously, but don't. The Living Daylights, and primarly because of Timothy Dalton, was a harkening back to the dangerous 007 the series was founded and made a success upon. Here, Dalton's portrayal has the right level of intensity, seriousness, and dry humor.
Like Craig is now, Dalton was seen as un-funny. This is not the case. Dalton's humor is the right kind of humor for 007: not overt or delivered as a pun, rather dry, smart, and appropriate given the situation. I loved some of his lines in The Living Daylights, especially "he got the boot." Dalton's casual yet determined delivery is a great way to sum up his performance: casual yet determined.
In Licence To Kill however, Bond becomes a bit too casual (never has Bonds hair been so wild) and a bit too determined. The cinematic history between Bond and Felix did not warrant such an emotional response from Dalton, however thats arguably more of an indictment of the writers than Dalton. Nevertheless, his performance is quite enjoyable.
Bottom line, Dalton sets a standard for a return to Ian Fleming's 007 that becomes popularized with Pierce Brosnan, and reached to perfection with Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. For that, the series owes his small, but distingushed Bond era a lot of credit.
The casting of Dalton pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the silliness of the Moore-era scripts.
TC,
are you my clone?
haha nope, but this must mean you have good taste on all things Bond
Cut to the Best Bond Movie featuring the Best Bond Ever (Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan). In 1986, his friend, Alec Trevelyan, is murdered in cold blood by Colonel Arkady Gregorovich Ouromov. Now in 1987, Dalton still feels guilty that he's let the man down, which, whenever someone dies, he seems so freaked out, as he's almost "avenging" Alec by killing the people who killed his friends.
See, now GoldenEye saves Dalton... I'm just so nice.