Dalton, Connery, & Craig are insanely OverRated!

DelicatessenInSteel

Depending on the message boards these guys get all the love..but I kinda think Craig made one great movie, a crap one, and a mediocre. Dalton made one good one that bombed & he was an overactor. Connery had the presence but most of his flicks are overrated and he's really only made two good Bond films..you figure out which ones...Discuss

AlphaOmegaSin

What do you think of Lazenby then?

Thunderpussy

Sorry, have to disagree old man.
Only my opinion but, Connery is Bond, Dalton was brilliant and Craig has reinvented the role
For a whole new generation. All these actors have tried to bring some of the aspects of the
Bond of the novels to the screen. If it's been a while since you've read any of the books you should
Go back and re-read them ( as I'm doing at the moment ) and you might have a different
View on these actors.
Not to leave anyone out I also enjoy Brosnan, Moore and Lazenby as Bond. )

Thunderpussy

Just like to add that I think Brosnan is the most under rated actor, he simply got some weak scripts.

Blackleiter

DelicatessenInSteel wrote:

Depending on the message boards these guys get all the love..but I kinda think Craig made one great movie, a crap one, and a mediocre. Dalton made one good one that bombed & he was an overactor. Connery had the presence but most of his flicks are overrated and he's really only made two good Bond films..you figure out which ones...Discuss

I respectly disagree on almost every point you made. The point I agree on is that Craig made a great Bond film (Casino Royale), but I also feel he made a very good one (Skyfall) and an okay one (Quantum of Solace). Both of Dalton's films were above average to me, especially because of his acting. As for Connery, he brought far more to the Bond films than a presence, and every one of his films, except perhaps Diamonds Are Forever, are among the best of the series. Of course, my opinions are no more valid than anyone else's, and I can understand that after hearing so much praise about these actors you might begin to feel that perhaps they are somewhat overrated. But to say they are insanely overrated - that's a bit much, in my opinion.

superado

I never expected Dalton would be considered "over-rated," who I think is largely under-rated and that's a crime. Seems like it's more of the pedestrian Bond fans who pan Dalton, thinking how underwhelming he is, falling short of the suave-Bond, sardonically-witty Bond, super-Bond mold...so it's no wonder that if someone from that camp sees praise about Dalton's interpretation of Bond, they conclude that it's unfounded. But for the objective fans of the "TRUE" Bond character, which BTW isn't bound by the Bond film series, going down the checklist Dalton nailed it the most.

welshboy78

Blackleiter wrote:

As for Connery, he brought far more to the Bond films than a presence, and every one of his films, except perhaps Diamonds Are Forever, are among the best of the series.

I agree however I find You Only Live Twice very weak also!!!

Blackleiter

welshboy78 wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

As for Connery, he brought far more to the Bond films than a presence, and every one of his films, except perhaps Diamonds Are Forever, are among the best of the series.

I agree however I find You Only Live Twice very weak also!!!

Since YOLT is one of my favorites, for pure entertainment value if nothing else, I will content myself with the knowledge that you generally agree with my comment about Connery's films. )

welshboy78

I actually watched it on the weekend funnily enough, its the whole "becoming Japanese" thing ruins it for me, so terribly done lol! I think it was sort of the first Bond film to maybe set the ball rolling for the later cheesy elements of Bond and move away from the more Fleming tone of the previous films (just my opinion here)

My missus was half watching it and commented what a sleaze ball Connery was since he cops off with another bird pretty much straight after Aki's death )

Blackleiter

welshboy78 wrote:

I actually watched it on the weekend funnily enough, its the whole "becoming Japanese" thing ruins it for me, so terribly done lol! I think it was sort of the first Bond film to maybe set the ball rolling for the later cheesy elements of Bond and move away from the more Fleming tone of the previous films (just my opinion here)

My missus was half watching it and commented what a sleaze ball Connery was since he cops off with another bird pretty much straight after Aki's death )

Well.....I will admit that the "becoming Japanese" bit was the worst part, but even that can't put a damper of my overall enjoyment of YOLT. I just find it to be such fun that I even forgive it for perhaps ushering in the "Roger Moore era". And believe me, that takes a lot of forgiving on my part! )

Firemass

The true Bond fan, who appreciates the finer points of the series, knows that Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan are the best. -{

screename

I actually have no problem with Roger. I just hate his script writers! )

Barbel

welshboy78 wrote:

I actually watched it on the weekend funnily enough, its the whole "becoming Japanese" thing ruins it for me, so terribly done lol! I think it was sort of the first Bond film to maybe set the ball rolling for the later cheesy elements of Bond and move away from the more Fleming tone of the previous films (just my opinion here)

Oddly enough that's one of the few bits of the movie that derives from Fleming!

Blackleiter

Barbel wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

I actually watched it on the weekend funnily enough, its the whole "becoming Japanese" thing ruins it for me, so terribly done lol! I think it was sort of the first Bond film to maybe set the ball rolling for the later cheesy elements of Bond and move away from the more Fleming tone of the previous films (just my opinion here)

Oddly enough that's one of the few bits of the movie that derives from Fleming!

True, but it really didn't work that well in the movie. At least not to me. Still a great Bond flick, though!

Thunderpussy

Exactly, in the novel as well as a haircut he has his skin dyed.

Blackleiter

Firemass wrote:

The true Bond fan, who appreciates the finer points of the series, knows that Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan are the best. -{

Is that you, Richard? Welcome back, old boy! )

DelicatessenInSteel

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

What do you think of Lazenby then?

Lazenby was awesome..in what i still think is the best Bond movie (not my favorite but the best) and i just realized I forgot Pierce Brosnan was Bond.

DelicatessenInSteel

The only reason I'm posting this divisive opinion is that I'm rewatching these movies & went through the Moore ones first (Then OHMSS) because they are generally panned etc. Haven't watched A View To a A Kill because I'm waiting for the Never Say Never Again retirement doublebill. But man the Connery movies do not hold up especially FRWL & Goldfinger..put me & my friends to sleep(Thunderball is painfully bad) YOLT is entertainingly ridiculous like Moonraker..but my friends want to give up & we haven't even gotten to Dalton or Pierce....who I forgot was James Bond.
-{ -{

Blackleiter

DelicatessenInSteel wrote:

But man the Connery movies do not hold up especially FRWL & Goldfinger..put me & my friends to sleep(Thunderball is painfully bad)

Or perhaps you and your friends just have short attention spans? Anyway, as they say, one person's boring, yawn-inducing ordeal is another person's most excellent spy flick! :007)

Mr_Osato

You tell him BL. Blasphemy! Connery is Bond. No discussion. Without him, the franchise would have never lifted off at all. However, he did have the huge advantage that he had the Fleming novels to work with, and of course the era of the 60's, when everything that came from Britain was considered cool.

Dalton's movies are not my favourite. Dalton lacked star power, but also the 80's where a bad era for Bond films in general.

Craig is not my favourite Bond, however, CR is a great film and so is SF. QOS is forgettable, but I blame the director more than Craig. Do agree that Brosnan is underrated and that the scripts let him down. Seemed like all his lines where full of double meanings and puns, I felt bad for him.

ZorinIndustries

Thunderpussy wrote:

Just like to add that I think Brosnan is the most under rated actor, he simply got some weak scripts.

I agree with you 100% TP -{

Kabraxal

Dalton.. overrated? Considering he is only just getting recognised 20 years later, I'd say overrated is the last thing he is.

Higgins

superado wrote:

Seems like it's more of the pedestrian Bond fans who pan Dalton, thinking how underwhelming he is, falling short of the suave-Bond, sardonically-witty Bond, super-Bond mold...so it's no wonder that if someone from that camp sees praise about Dalton's interpretation of Bond, they conclude that it's unfounded. But for the objective fans of the "TRUE" Bond character, which BTW isn't bound by the Bond film series, going down the checklist Dalton nailed it the most.

Hello, old friend,

just to be complete, I entirely disagree with your points above and I count myself to the group that is a fan of the "true" Bond character, Dalton simply fails to convince me, that he's Bond by that definition. -{

AlphaOmegaSin

Dalton made two of the greatest Films in the whole Series.

Blackleiter

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Dalton made two of the greatest Films in the whole Series.

He sure did! -{

Thatonesecretagentguy

We also have to look at when the films were made. Watching these older movies from the eyes of a man in 2013 is quite different from watching Tunderball the year it was released. The film style then WAS in fact slower and more paced out, whereas in the Rodger Moore era it started to pick up as audience started to find a faster film pace a little more interesting until we get to were we are today.
Connery is not my "favorite" but he did a grand job of bringing the character to life on the screen.
As far as Dalton's "over-acting" and being "over- rated" I have to say that, sorry, you're just dead wrong.
Timothy Dalton is probably one of the best actors to portray 007, and if you think he's over acting I question which actors you think are good ones. The reason Dalton was seen as so morose and understated is because, first of all, he's a classical actor so his reactions are much more realistic that what we've previously seen. And also, he tried something completely different from the previous actors. I'm sure you've heard people say he brought back the Flemming to 007, and it's quite true. If you haven't, I encourage you to pick up a few of the novels, and I challenge you to not picture Dalton, or Craig, or Connery in you're head. Whether or not the audience liked Dalton...? Well he did only make two films. But I believe the people then weren't ready for a darker Bond.
As far as CRAIG goes. Casino Royale is, in my opinion, the DEFINITIVE Bond film. So while QOS is good (And when you look into the character development, it get's even better) it fell short after CR.

just my two cents.

screename

Good points. I also think that Dalton's "Overacting" is more of a credit to his scripts. He did the best with TLD, but the script was still full of cheesy one liners that he tried his best to make serious and palatable. LTK was, in my opinion, a terrible script. Even though is was "written for Dalton's darker Bond" it felt cheesier than TLD, I'd have to watch it again. If Dalton was given a script like QoS, CR, or even TWINE or TND he would have been able to play it just as dark as he wanted to and would probably now be regarded as a competitor to Craig. Besides, he should have gotten GE.

DEFIANT 74205

superado wrote:

I never expected Dalton would be considered "over-rated," who I think is largely under-rated and that's a crime. Seems like it's more of the pedestrian Bond fans who pan Dalton, thinking how underwhelming he is, falling short of the suave-Bond, sardonically-witty Bond, super-Bond mold...so it's no wonder that if someone from that camp sees praise about Dalton's interpretation of Bond, they conclude that it's unfounded. But for the objective fans of the "TRUE" Bond character, which BTW isn't bound by the Bond film series, going down the checklist Dalton nailed it the most.

Yes. Very well said. -{

The only TRUE Bond character, in my view, is the one that Fleming created and encapsulated in the fourteen James Bond books he wrote. I agree absolutely that it's the casual fans that pan Dalton's performances. As far as I'm concerned, the cinematic Bond is a poor imitation.

On that basis, Dalton 'hit the nail on the head', as it were, in his performances as Bond. It is as close to the literary Bond as any other actor to have played Bond has got. Connery's performances in his first two films was also exemplary - Dr No and From Russia With Love are both masterpieces.

GQ Magazine published an article a while back, on why Dalton is the best Bond:

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2012-11/08/timothy-dalton-the-best-james-bond-007

DelicatessenInSteel wrote:

But man the Connery movies do not hold up especially FRWL & Goldfinger..put me & my friends to sleep(Thunderball is painfully bad) YOLT is entertainingly ridiculous like Moonraker..but my friends want to give up & we haven't even gotten to Dalton or Pierce....who I forgot was James Bond.
-{ -{

Not sure if trolling ... 8-)

Moonraker was one of the worst Bond films ever made, and without doubt the farthest removed from the original Fleming source material. Fleming's Moonraker novel was a masterpiece - I would argue that's the best Bond novel - but EON's desecration of Fleming's work makes me angry.

Bondtoys wrote:

I count myself to the group that is a fan of the "true" Bond character, Dalton simply fails to convince me, that he's Bond by that definition. -{

That would be the Fleming literary Bond.

Not sure how Dalton doesn't measure up when compared with the literary Bond 8-)

Higgins

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

That would be the Fleming literary Bond.

Not sure how Dalton doesn't measure up when compared with the literary Bond 8-)

That could be a long list:

- Litery Bond does not easily feel deeply with the girl
- He certainly would have treated Kara and Lupe differently than in the movie
- he would not have wept from anger
- he would have kept his hair shorter
- he would have punched better

…….

Thunderpussy

) I love these Dalton arguments, very entertaining.

Higgins

well, I enjoy exchanging opinions with people who have more to say than "Dalton made two of the greatest Films in the whole Series" or "he was the best"

Defiant, to follow your general pattern in these arguments - what exactly makes you think that Dalton fits the literary Bond description - and let's spare that he's read all the novels and wanted to make a hard-edge Bond.

Tall and dark-haired - my auntie also it