Timothy Dalton IMHO is the best Bond, I think he was a better actor than the rest. However, the best accolade came from the late great Desmond Llewellyn (sp) when he said in a documentary "Timothy was Flemings true Bond" I guess he would have know after working with all 5 up to and including Brozzer (My 4th fave Bond) at the time of his death.
Well I like both of Dalton films that he was in. Now I've never read Ian Flemmings books well enough to tell a true description of bond but I hope it is not like Dalton he is just not the bond I depict to be the real bond. I always saw connery as the real bond but I guess im just a connery slave never being able to escape
Timothy Dalton was not the best Bond at all, but definatly not the worst Bond either. And Dalton's Bond movies were pretty good(even though License to kill was not as good as Living Daylights). Dalton just played Bond in a new way than Connery/Moore did...and I think he did a good job.
Dalton has been my favorite Bond for as long as I can remember. His two films are among my favorite (though TLD ranks considerably higher than LTK) I just finished watching TLD with my best friend who had never seen one of Dalton's Bond movies, and wanted to see what I liked about him so much. At the end of the film he proclaimed Dalton to be his new favorite (replacing Connery) He said everything I've said in my defense of Dalton. His portrayal of Bond was the quintessence example of the Fleming Bond. The scene in which Bond simply sits and listens to Kara playing her instruement is enough for me. It shows Bond in his most pure form, and to me, only Dalton could produce. . . though Craig comes in a close second.
"Guns make me nervous!"
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
I think Dalton is great, but I believe that in order to judge him fairly it is necessary to make two separate considerations.
First: are his films (and his acting) great to watch in their own right? For me yes, but that's just a humble opinion.
Second: are his films (and his acting) good in the context of other Bonds? This is not just a matter of comparing Dalton with the others but also to understand the time at which his Bond appears: Right after Moore who was both immensely popular and unbelievably far from the original Bond spirit admired in DN and FRWL; and before Brosnan who was very good but somewhat middle-of-the-road.
It's clear that Dalton's mission was to bring Bond back from the jokiness of Moore. He was the gritty and realistic Bond before Craig took away that honour from him. Now Craig does make Dalton look a little soft by comparison. Yet being gritty in the cinema of the eighties (and just after the Moore era) is hardly the same thing as being gritty in 2006.
Yet being gritty in the cinema of the eighties (and just after the Moore era) is hardly the same thing as being gritty in 2006.
Excellent point Harry. The problem the Bond franchise suffers from, and subsequently the Bond actors, is that people tend to forget when they were made and put it into context with what is relevant today. Moore gets such a bashing these days, yet his film were tremendously successful and well loved, yet to read commentators today you would think he nearly destroyed the franchise. His films were perfect for his time.
Same with Dalton. Bearing in mind when they came along they were really very radical and it is really amusing ( actually, rather galling if I'm honest) to constantly read that Craig is the dark, gritty, bloodied Bond when it has actually been done though out the series at various times.
All the actors have suffered at some stage through weak scripts, poor dialogue and the occasional technological overload but thats what happens when you have a franchise thats 44 years old.
Craig, as good as he was, has also been extremely lucky in that he struck gold with his script and that the producers were finally ready to commit 100% to a 'new' Bond. The actors are only as good as their scripts and I'm sure Dalton ( and Brosnan ) would love to have taken their characters a lot further but they weren't able to. Which begs the question, did Cubby play it safe too much? Though that is a different topic all together.
Dalton, nearly 20 years later, is still be hammered for his interpretation and unjustly so IMO. His Bond was new, brave and opened the floodgates for different facets of Bonds character to be introduced. He may not be the best Bond but he was a very important Bond.
I don't totally agree. It seemed that Dalton's Bond wasn't really hard enough compared with the big action film of that time: Lethal Weapon, with its running and jumping heroics rather than car chases, and young handsome Mel rather than straightlaced Tim.
I agree with the thread. Timothy Dalton is Bond as was written. He was tough and arrogant with role, and had that air of a loner that Bond has in the books.
Moore on the other hand, as we all know was Flemings choice for Bond, played it with a more entertaining outlook.
Yet being gritty in the cinema of the eighties (and just after the Moore era) is hardly the same thing as being gritty in 2006.
Excellent point Harry. The problem the Bond franchise suffers from, and subsequently the Bond actors, is that people tend to forget when they were made and put it into context with what is relevant today. Moore gets such a bashing these days, yet his film were tremendously successful and well loved, yet to read commentators today you would think he nearly destroyed the franchise. His films were perfect for his time.
Same with Dalton. Bearing in mind when they came along they were really very radical and it is really amusing ( actually, rather galling if I'm honest) to constantly read that Craig is the dark, gritty, bloodied Bond when it has actually been done though out the series at various times.
All the actors have suffered at some stage through weak scripts, poor dialogue and the occasional technological overload but thats what happens when you have a franchise thats 44 years old.
Craig, as good as he was, has also been extremely lucky in that he struck gold with his script and that the producers were finally ready to commit 100% to a 'new' Bond. The actors are only as good as their scripts and I'm sure Dalton ( and Brosnan ) would love to have taken their characters a lot further but they weren't able to. Which begs the question, did Cubby play it safe too much? Though that is a different topic all together.
Dalton, nearly 20 years later, is still be hammered for his interpretation and unjustly so IMO. His Bond was new, brave and opened the floodgates for different facets of Bonds character to be introduced. He may not be the best Bond but he was a very important Bond.
Moore gets such a bashing these days, yet his film were tremendously successful and well loved, yet to read commentators today you would think he nearly destroyed the franchise. His films were perfect for his time.
I was guilty, many moons ago, of giving Roger Moore a bit of a roasting. I have revised that opinion considerably over the past few years (especially over Moonraker, a film I love now), however I think your point about the context in which those films were made is worth considering. This popular notion that Moore was the deathknell of the series is unfortunate as, at the time, the films probably did strike the right creative note. This does not mean that they are above criticism by any means, but that in criticising those films the notion of context is absolutely essential.
Same with Dalton. Bearing in mind when they came along they were really very radical and it is really amusing ( actually, rather galling if I'm honest) to constantly read that Craig is the dark, gritty, bloodied Bond when it has actually been done though out the series at various times.
I'm a big Dalton fan (his interpretation was *not* Fleming's Bond for me, but a very successful interpretation of the screen character), however to be honest I do not find it galling that Craig is the dark, gritty and bloodied Bond. I think Craig's interpretation of the role is fairly different from Dalton's, with a far greater emphasis on the more brutal and violent side of the character. This is not to suggest, of course, that darkness, grit and blood has not been seen before, only that those three attributes have been brought to the screen in a different way in Casino Royale.
All the actors have suffered at some stage through weak scripts, poor dialogue and the occasional technological overload but thats what happens when you have a franchise thats 44 years old.
Craig, as good as he was, has also been extremely lucky in that he struck gold with his script and that the producers were finally ready to commit 100% to a 'new' Bond. The actors are only as good as their scripts and I'm sure Dalton ( and Brosnan ) would love to have taken their characters a lot further but they weren't able to. Which begs the question, did Cubby play it safe too much? Though that is a different topic all together.
I do take your underlying premise that the actor in the lead role is blamed too much (or, I suppose, credited too much) with the quality of the overall film. In fact I think that is such an important point. Obviously the lead actor is one element, a key element, but there are so many other factors affecting a film's quality that are outwith the lead actor's control.
Although I would concur that Daniel Craig has been lucky in the sense that the script and general direction of the series were driven through with surprising commitment from the producers, I genuinely believe that he added a great deal of depth to the role that only an actor of his calibre could have done. Craig's performance is incredible in Casino Royale, besting, in my view, all the previous Bonds. Obviously the director, the producers, fellow actors and so on contributed to that performance; but despite his luck in those he worked with, Craig added something to the role beyond the words of the script.
I like your rhetorical question Lady Rose. Many people probably would say that Cubby played it too safe in the end, although to be fair in many ways Licence To Kill was an incredibly brave departure tonally. Barbara and Michael, for me, also played it too safe when it came to TWINE; many interesting avenues were explored in that film, however the producers were constrained by what had become an exhausted formula. This is where your notion of context comes into play, Lady Rose. It is difficult to judge those endeavours too harshly because, at the time, the formula was viewed as sancrosanct. Too far a move from that formula, at that time, might have been met with commercial and critical disappointment, especially with Brosnan in the lead with whom the audience and critics were prepared for a particular sort of Bond film. As an analogy to illustrate, had For Your Eyes Only been stripped of all the gags (parrot, Mrs T, 'Blofeld' et al), instead being a very violent and brutal picture, I doubt the reaction would have been positive. The public did not expect that from a Moore Bond picture, just as they did not expect a revolutionary Brosnan Bond picture in the vein of Casino Royale.
That said, I do not think Brosnan would have done well in the scenario he probably wanted (i.e., a much darker route). I think you are absolutely correct in that Brosnan would have liked to have taken the character further, although I doubt his ability to do so convincingly. That is just my opinion though, and another topic for discussion altogether.
Dalton, nearly 20 years later, is still be hammered for his interpretation and unjustly so IMO. His Bond was new, brave and opened the floodgates for different facets of Bonds character to be introduced. He may not be the best Bond but he was a very important Bond.
I cannot agree with this enough Lady Rose. Dalton was an excellent Bond in my view. I can understand if he was not some people's cup of tea, but for me he brought to the fore a fascinating exploration of the Bond character; a very individual interpretation and one which was brave and daring, especially for its time. Dalton's Bond *did* open the floodgates for different facets of the Bond character to be introduced, and it is in this sense that I think Dalton had a strong impact on the series despite the brevity of his tenure. Dalton, and the many others who contributed to his interpretation of 007, had quite an influence on Brosnan's Bond. There was an exploration of those facets between 1995-2002; facets which were introduced during the Dalton era.
Same with Dalton. Bearing in mind when they came along they were really very radical and it is really amusing ( actually, rather galling if I'm honest) to constantly read that Craig is the dark, gritty, bloodied Bond when it has actually been done though out the series at various times.
I'm a big Dalton fan (his interpretation was *not* Fleming's Bond for me, but a very successful interpretation of the screen character), however to be honest I do not find it galling that Craig is the dark, gritty and bloodied Bond. I think Craig's interpretation of the role is fairly different from Dalton's, with a far greater emphasis on the more brutal and violent side of the character. This is not to suggest, of course, that darkness, grit and blood has not been seen before, only that those three attributes have been brought to the screen in a different way in Casino Royale.
Actually, I don't find it so galling these days. I wrote that back in November and I was getting a little tired of the 'Craig is the saviour of the franchise talk.' The same thing happened when Brosnan took over. I think Craig is fabulous but IMO no actor is bigger than the franchise and to suggest otherwise is incorrect.
I actually agree with you now that Craig's interpretation is slightly different but there are similarities. Craig's is more brutal and I think Craig's Bond doesn't think twice about using force but Dalton's Bond, whilst still lethal, has more of a conscious.
(Nice post L880 and I concur about Moonraker - it would rate much higher in my listings if it wasn't for the stupid ending - it started out great and has one of my favourite villains but lost it way completely at the end. )
I thought Dalton was a bit schizophrenic in his interpretation (separate from Cubby playing it safe, which I totally agree with). He'd be all intense, then all goofy. The goofy quotient dropped quite a bit in LTK, but it was still there (is there a Bondian way to jump into a swimming pool? dunno, but Dalton didn't pull it off, lol). Brosnan followed suit IMO, and agree with L880 about his ability to pull off a darker, grittier, etc. Bond interpretation (especially when he thinks of the character as a superhero!?). Both actors seemed at odds with the character rather more than they should've IMO, not sure why as they've also both done better work elsewhere. Sign of the times and it was what it was, like that? Intimidated? Poor scripts/direction? Producer interference? Just not good enough? Well they kept the franchise going, I'll give 'em that. Just really think the Bond that came out of the Moore years really doesn't suit anybody but Moore. Weird that EON was okay changing 60s Bond to what Moore developed by the late 70s, but seemed rather more reluctant to really embrace another direction post-Moore up until CR (IMO: Dalton was a nice but half-hearted try in the end, sadly...but wish he'd gotten the part in '81). Makes one appreciate Moore a whole lot, well, more, looked at that way.
Excellent postings LR and L880. {[]
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I agree. A great run of conversation; good reading {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think that Dalton did a good job with the material that he had but there is one particular moment where his limitations are exposed I think.
At the end of the pre-titles sequence in TLD his delivery of the, 'Better make that 2' line is far too stiff I think. This feels like a Roger Moore line and Dalton just wasn't able to perform it knowingly enough.
Although Dalton's films are fairly well liked by fans, I think it's this lack of knowingness, and more importantly lack of fun, which were and are a problem with a lot of people.
Another reason why Dalton was never really accepted is probably that people were growing a little sick of Bond by this stage. NSNA and AVTAK didn't perform that well at the box office and many people probably didn't rate them. After 25 years of having a film every 2 years, it's no surprise that people were a little tired of the franchise.
Brosnan was fortunate that he was able to take on the role after a significant gap.
I think I like all the actors that played Bond but one has to come last and that's Dalton for me. Actually, I find the one major fault he has is the delivery of the one-liners; 'Licence To Kill' I find better because he wasn't given so many, but there are a few of them in 'The Living Daylights' and he's not so great with them, imho. I tend to feel as well that some of the dialogue he was given feels more part of the Roger Moore era and Moore is my 2nd fave Bond so I'm no Moore basher by any means. I tend to embrace most eras of the series, really.
That article posted earlier in this thread is WAY off the mark on Moore and Lazenby, imho. I feel Moore's best performances in the role were TSWLM, FYEO and Octopussy; there are moments in those where he is as deadly as any of his predecessors and successors. I would argue that LALD and TMWTTGG show Moore at his silliest- I love his delivery and timing in LALD (it's spot on, imho) but I think he was more serious and grounded in subsequent films.
Every time I watch OHMSS, I don't once have the 'Sean could have done it better' feeling from Lazenby's performance- I think he's spot on in the scenes with Diana Rigg and I think they have genuine on-screen chemistry (whatever their off-screen relationship was like at the time). But I do agree that LTK was a bold and daring attempt to break free (almost completely) with long established tradition and imho, should be celebrated for that, rather than criticised for what it isn't.
I don't think any other actor could have played the obsessed to the point of madness role as well as Dalton. Lazenby would have had the prime opportunity to do so had he starred in an OHMSS sequel, but alas, that never happened. LTK features a brilliant Dalton performance. His on edge character in that film is perfect for the dark themes within: betrayal, loyalty, obsession, etc. Dalton has the high degree of believability that the others were questionable at attaining. I certainly would have loved to see a few more Dalton/Bond collaborations, as LTK proves that he just nailed the character. Would the next film have evolved the tougher side of Bond or would it have reverted to the over the top TLD action?
I couldn't stand Dalton's performance in LTK. IMO, it was the single worst Bond performance of all time (followed by TLD.) What I can't stand about it was that IMO Dalton in it only had one emotion, and he stuck with it for the entire film. I think the film had a terrific concept (Bond goes rogue to get revenge) but I think it was seriously undermined by Dalton's performance. As for TLD, I don't think that Dalton was quite as bad as he was in LTK but he was still extremely ordinary. I will say this about Dalton; he's a great guy.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I think Dalton was great. But I think it was a shame that he was only in two films. In my opinion, you can't exactly compare him to Connery or Moore (or even Brosnan for that matter), simply because of the amount of Bond films he's been in.
The two films he was in were also both great films too in my opinion. And I think he was suited for the films. Imagine any other Bond actor other than Dalton in TLD or LTK. It wouldn't work.
I haven't read much Bond (just the one novel - LALD), but yeah, Dalton does seem similar to the Flemming Bond. As does Daniel Craig.
I just wish that Dalton did a couple more Bond films after LTK and before GE.
Imagine any other Bond actor other than Dalton in TLD or LTK. It wouldn't work.
What about LTK in 1967 with a fully motivated Connery? I think it could have been awesome.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I would argue that LALD and TMWTTGG show Moore at his silliest- I love his delivery and timing in LALD (it's spot on, imho) but I think he was more serious and grounded in subsequent films.
I don't think I'd go along with that argument. I think the Moore era was a lot sillier later on, and I do see a great deal of nastiness in RogerBond in Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun. Consider the casual way in which Bond treats the news of Baine's death during M's meeting, or Bond's pretty callous treatment of Rosie and Andrea.
There is a lot more silliness in Moonraker or A View to a Kill than the first two Moore films, in my view. Even For Your Eyes Only, an admittedly more grounded film than its (immensely enjoyable) immediate predecessor, has all sorts of silly gags: the talking bird, the double taking chap, the Mrs Thatcher parody amongst others. I would also contend that Moore's Bond, as a character, was not more serious in these subsequent films, as I do not think he was distinctly silly in the first two.
First of all, regarding that article, I agree that it was a little harsh on Brosnan. That said, one of the main reasons I'm not so keen on Brosnan these days is that I look back on his reign as more of a James Bland sort of role. Some say Brosnan had a perfect balance of all the Bond attributes...I say he had nothing that made him stand out.
Anyhow, Dalton is a fantastic Bond. If there's a flaw with his Bond movies it's that the filmmakers decided to completely abandon Bond's comic side (especially in LTK). I don't entirely disagree with this choice, but at the same time, I think that in 1987 Dalton's no-nonsense Bond would have been shocking for those who grew up on Moore. In addition, LTK is one of my favorite Bonds, but I do understand the cries of those that say it almost doesn't feel like a Bond film.
I know it's almost become a cliche, but Dalton really does remind me of the Bond of the books. I appreciate that fact, but certainly won't claim it makes him the best Bond. IMHO, he's the best Bond because I like him the best, for a variety of reasons.
Dalton was great. I wish he would've have the opportunity to do a third film, but it was not in the cards.
3rbrownMI6 Top Secret - Scotland, GlaPosts: 100MI6 Agent
Then I hope your happy to see me from the ages of 9 to 15 I hated Dalton but recently I have started to place him joint 2nd place. I mostly love him LTK plaing to his streaghs as a theater actor how could Bond fans hate the Bond called the Ian Flemming Bond?
Comments
Ant.
Well could anyone have?
Then I would cry! See, when I'm nice, I just end up getting hurt again!
First: are his films (and his acting) great to watch in their own right? For me yes, but that's just a humble opinion.
Second: are his films (and his acting) good in the context of other Bonds? This is not just a matter of comparing Dalton with the others but also to understand the time at which his Bond appears: Right after Moore who was both immensely popular and unbelievably far from the original Bond spirit admired in DN and FRWL; and before Brosnan who was very good but somewhat middle-of-the-road.
It's clear that Dalton's mission was to bring Bond back from the jokiness of Moore. He was the gritty and realistic Bond before Craig took away that honour from him. Now Craig does make Dalton look a little soft by comparison. Yet being gritty in the cinema of the eighties (and just after the Moore era) is hardly the same thing as being gritty in 2006.
Excellent point Harry. The problem the Bond franchise suffers from, and subsequently the Bond actors, is that people tend to forget when they were made and put it into context with what is relevant today. Moore gets such a bashing these days, yet his film were tremendously successful and well loved, yet to read commentators today you would think he nearly destroyed the franchise. His films were perfect for his time.
Same with Dalton. Bearing in mind when they came along they were really very radical and it is really amusing ( actually, rather galling if I'm honest) to constantly read that Craig is the dark, gritty, bloodied Bond when it has actually been done though out the series at various times.
All the actors have suffered at some stage through weak scripts, poor dialogue and the occasional technological overload but thats what happens when you have a franchise thats 44 years old.
Craig, as good as he was, has also been extremely lucky in that he struck gold with his script and that the producers were finally ready to commit 100% to a 'new' Bond. The actors are only as good as their scripts and I'm sure Dalton ( and Brosnan ) would love to have taken their characters a lot further but they weren't able to. Which begs the question, did Cubby play it safe too much? Though that is a different topic all together.
Dalton, nearly 20 years later, is still be hammered for his interpretation and unjustly so IMO. His Bond was new, brave and opened the floodgates for different facets of Bonds character to be introduced. He may not be the best Bond but he was a very important Bond.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Moore on the other hand, as we all know was Flemings choice for Bond, played it with a more entertaining outlook.
Dalton is and always will be the Best Bond.
I'm a big Dalton fan (his interpretation was *not* Fleming's Bond for me, but a very successful interpretation of the screen character), however to be honest I do not find it galling that Craig is the dark, gritty and bloodied Bond. I think Craig's interpretation of the role is fairly different from Dalton's, with a far greater emphasis on the more brutal and violent side of the character. This is not to suggest, of course, that darkness, grit and blood has not been seen before, only that those three attributes have been brought to the screen in a different way in Casino Royale.
Very true.
I do take your underlying premise that the actor in the lead role is blamed too much (or, I suppose, credited too much) with the quality of the overall film. In fact I think that is such an important point. Obviously the lead actor is one element, a key element, but there are so many other factors affecting a film's quality that are outwith the lead actor's control.
Although I would concur that Daniel Craig has been lucky in the sense that the script and general direction of the series were driven through with surprising commitment from the producers, I genuinely believe that he added a great deal of depth to the role that only an actor of his calibre could have done. Craig's performance is incredible in Casino Royale, besting, in my view, all the previous Bonds. Obviously the director, the producers, fellow actors and so on contributed to that performance; but despite his luck in those he worked with, Craig added something to the role beyond the words of the script.
I like your rhetorical question Lady Rose. Many people probably would say that Cubby played it too safe in the end, although to be fair in many ways Licence To Kill was an incredibly brave departure tonally. Barbara and Michael, for me, also played it too safe when it came to TWINE; many interesting avenues were explored in that film, however the producers were constrained by what had become an exhausted formula. This is where your notion of context comes into play, Lady Rose. It is difficult to judge those endeavours too harshly because, at the time, the formula was viewed as sancrosanct. Too far a move from that formula, at that time, might have been met with commercial and critical disappointment, especially with Brosnan in the lead with whom the audience and critics were prepared for a particular sort of Bond film. As an analogy to illustrate, had For Your Eyes Only been stripped of all the gags (parrot, Mrs T, 'Blofeld' et al), instead being a very violent and brutal picture, I doubt the reaction would have been positive. The public did not expect that from a Moore Bond picture, just as they did not expect a revolutionary Brosnan Bond picture in the vein of Casino Royale.
That said, I do not think Brosnan would have done well in the scenario he probably wanted (i.e., a much darker route). I think you are absolutely correct in that Brosnan would have liked to have taken the character further, although I doubt his ability to do so convincingly. That is just my opinion though, and another topic for discussion altogether.
I cannot agree with this enough Lady Rose. Dalton was an excellent Bond in my view. I can understand if he was not some people's cup of tea, but for me he brought to the fore a fascinating exploration of the Bond character; a very individual interpretation and one which was brave and daring, especially for its time. Dalton's Bond *did* open the floodgates for different facets of the Bond character to be introduced, and it is in this sense that I think Dalton had a strong impact on the series despite the brevity of his tenure. Dalton, and the many others who contributed to his interpretation of 007, had quite an influence on Brosnan's Bond. There was an exploration of those facets between 1995-2002; facets which were introduced during the Dalton era.
It's easy if you imagine.
Actually, I don't find it so galling these days. I wrote that back in November and I was getting a little tired of the 'Craig is the saviour of the franchise talk.' The same thing happened when Brosnan took over. I think Craig is fabulous but IMO no actor is bigger than the franchise and to suggest otherwise is incorrect.
I actually agree with you now that Craig's interpretation is slightly different but there are similarities. Craig's is more brutal and I think Craig's Bond doesn't think twice about using force but Dalton's Bond, whilst still lethal, has more of a conscious.
(Nice post L880 and I concur about Moonraker - it would rate much higher in my listings if it wasn't for the stupid ending - it started out great and has one of my favourite villains but lost it way completely at the end.
Excellent postings LR and L880. {[]
I agree. A great run of conversation; good reading {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
At the end of the pre-titles sequence in TLD his delivery of the, 'Better make that 2' line is far too stiff I think. This feels like a Roger Moore line and Dalton just wasn't able to perform it knowingly enough.
Although Dalton's films are fairly well liked by fans, I think it's this lack of knowingness, and more importantly lack of fun, which were and are a problem with a lot of people.
Another reason why Dalton was never really accepted is probably that people were growing a little sick of Bond by this stage. NSNA and AVTAK didn't perform that well at the box office and many people probably didn't rate them. After 25 years of having a film every 2 years, it's no surprise that people were a little tired of the franchise.
Brosnan was fortunate that he was able to take on the role after a significant gap.
That article posted earlier in this thread is WAY off the mark on Moore and Lazenby, imho. I feel Moore's best performances in the role were TSWLM, FYEO and Octopussy; there are moments in those where he is as deadly as any of his predecessors and successors. I would argue that LALD and TMWTTGG show Moore at his silliest- I love his delivery and timing in LALD (it's spot on, imho) but I think he was more serious and grounded in subsequent films.
Every time I watch OHMSS, I don't once have the 'Sean could have done it better' feeling from Lazenby's performance- I think he's spot on in the scenes with Diana Rigg and I think they have genuine on-screen chemistry (whatever their off-screen relationship was like at the time). But I do agree that LTK was a bold and daring attempt to break free (almost completely) with long established tradition and imho, should be celebrated for that, rather than criticised for what it isn't.
The two films he was in were also both great films too in my opinion. And I think he was suited for the films. Imagine any other Bond actor other than Dalton in TLD or LTK. It wouldn't work.
I haven't read much Bond (just the one novel - LALD), but yeah, Dalton does seem similar to the Flemming Bond. As does Daniel Craig.
I just wish that Dalton did a couple more Bond films after LTK and before GE.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I don't think I'd go along with that argument. I think the Moore era was a lot sillier later on, and I do see a great deal of nastiness in RogerBond in Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun. Consider the casual way in which Bond treats the news of Baine's death during M's meeting, or Bond's pretty callous treatment of Rosie and Andrea.
In fact, this is a bit arbitrary, and rudimentary, but for me there are really three phases in Moore's era. The first (LALD, TMWGG) displays a malicious and cold edge in amongst all the eyebrow raising and jokes. Bond's treatment of women (pretty much all of them—Rosie, Andrea and Mary) is dismissive and pretty brutal, with the character carrying around more arrogance than SeanBond or GeorgeBond ever did. The second (TSWLM—FYEO) shows a more ambivalent hero and generally friendly chap; no more cruelty here. Some jokes towards Dr Goodhead aside ("A *woman*?"), the girls are partners and almost respected for their abilities, if not quite the Female James Bond© prototype. The third (OP, AVTAK) stars a sort of fun uncle who is in a dangerous line of work, even though he is at pains to avoid causing too much trouble. Obviously there are provisos—Bond's behaviour towards Bibi Dahl is distinctly avuncular—however I think my exceedingly elementary analysis sort of stands.
There is a lot more silliness in Moonraker or A View to a Kill than the first two Moore films, in my view. Even For Your Eyes Only, an admittedly more grounded film than its (immensely enjoyable) immediate predecessor, has all sorts of silly gags: the talking bird, the double taking chap, the Mrs Thatcher parody amongst others. I would also contend that Moore's Bond, as a character, was not more serious in these subsequent films, as I do not think he was distinctly silly in the first two.
Again, good points - I agree.
First of all, regarding that article, I agree that it was a little harsh on Brosnan. That said, one of the main reasons I'm not so keen on Brosnan these days is that I look back on his reign as more of a James Bland sort of role. Some say Brosnan had a perfect balance of all the Bond attributes...I say he had nothing that made him stand out.
Anyhow, Dalton is a fantastic Bond. If there's a flaw with his Bond movies it's that the filmmakers decided to completely abandon Bond's comic side (especially in LTK). I don't entirely disagree with this choice, but at the same time, I think that in 1987 Dalton's no-nonsense Bond would have been shocking for those who grew up on Moore. In addition, LTK is one of my favorite Bonds, but I do understand the cries of those that say it almost doesn't feel like a Bond film.
I know it's almost become a cliche, but Dalton really does remind me of the Bond of the books. I appreciate that fact, but certainly won't claim it makes him the best Bond. IMHO, he's the best Bond because I like him the best, for a variety of reasons.
Dalton was great. I wish he would've have the opportunity to do a third film, but it was not in the cards.