Dalton was a bit....stuffy as Bond. But he was ok. Nothing earth-shattering, just...ok. I think it has to do with the cheapness of his 2 films. Both were made in the 80's...but rather than have the high-glitz production value of, say....a standard episode of Miami Vice, everything seemed kinda cheap and cheesy...done mostly on sound stages rather than at cool, exotic locales.
Compare things like...Bond in Brazil, going up against Jaws while the two dangle on opposing cable cars, with beautiful Rio de Janeiro in the background. Compare the scene in Skyfall where Bond goes to Asia, swims in a jaw-dropping, rooftop pool before tailing an assasin and getting into a beautifully-shot, back-lit fight, 30 stories up in a skyscraper. Compare, the opening scene in Spectre (one long, uninterrupted shot set within the Day of the Dead). Hauntingly beautiful. Compare Bond in Cairo, being pursued by Jaws among the pyramids. I could go on and on...
Now, compare the cheap, sound-stage set that served as Sanchez's lair (in License to Kill)....or the blah-looking, cookie-cutter casino....or the ridiculous scene near the end, at the drug factory (again, sound stage-looking). And don't get me started on the silly use of...Wayne Newton?? (That would be like using Elton John as a drug lord. You'd never be able to suspend disbelief and think of him as anyone other than...Elton John). And the Bond girls? Bland.....the absolute opposite of exotic. And what about the cheap, two-bit baddies...like that Texan guy (Killifer)....or that poor-man's Dennis Hopper guy (Krest). Hardly on the same level as guys like....Hugo Drax, or Bloefeld.
I feel similar about The Living Daylights. Bland and cheap-looking...with ho-hum Bond Girls, cheap sets and a stuffy Bond.
I like Dalton well enough, and feel he could have done better with better material (and production values). But I think he gets too much praise...while Daniel Craig doesn't get near enough. In fact, he gets a lot of underserved disdain simply because the films he's been in have a more serious, espionage tone. The producers HAD to reboot in that direction. Die Another Day took ridiculousness way, WAY too far. (Where do you go after invisible cars, Bond windsurfing on a tidal wave, using a car door and a parachute, etc, etc...).
Craig is the first Bond who looks like he could kill someone with his bare hands....not some guy prancing around in tuxedos, not a hair out of place, worrying if his little martinis are shaken or stirred. When he kills that assassin in the stairwell in CR....he then goes up to his room....downs a double scotch....puts on a new shirt, and goes back down to the poker game. And when asked if he wants his drink shaken or stirred? "Do I look like i give a damn?"
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9334)
3 years ago
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I would draw a distinction between being a great Bond and being in a great Bond film. Not necessarily the same thing. Best example? Lazenby and OHMSS. The movie is one of the best Bond films, but it's really dragged down by the living paint-chip with a jawline they hired to play Bond.
I'd also dispute that Craig is the first one looking like a killer. Connery definitely gave off the "I'll wreck you" vibe.
Now, I do know what you mean: the '80s Bond pics had some low-key sites and had a low-budget feel. They've got that '80s grain on them, and Bond is best with the epic settings and slick cinematography.
You're spot-on with the leading ladies, too (although Craig's counterpart in Quantum of Solace has to be one of the all-time-lows). Dalton didn't have the same dames.
More pushback: the villains of Licence to Kill are plenty sinister. Sanchez himself is one of the more ruthless bad guys Bond has gone up against and Benicio del Toro's crazy goon is unsettling and horrifying. Those nasties are part of the reason I love Licence to Kill.
The other big reason is that Bond gets his espionage on hardcore. He infiltrates the villain's organization and starts planting rumours and using commando tactics to turn them on each other. It's like Yojimbo. He's just playing them off each other.
As far as praise goes, I hear nobody praising Dalton. Particularly at first, Craig had tonnes of support. As soon as Casino Royale came out it was like the second coming, people tripped all over themselves to celebrate the "gritty" new Bond - all of them forgetting they really hated that guy back in the '80s. Craig still has about 80% of the fans loving his every move and a very angry, vocal 20% who don't like the new films. The biggest claims against aren't a serious tone, but rather a non-Bond tone. Quantum of Solace felt like a Bourne movie knockoff with name swaps. I liked the other Craig films, but Quantum was really horrible.
reply
share
Ripkens25 (1898)
3 years ago
Some great insight here. I agree about Sanchez being a ruthless bastard...(and Benicio has a menacing look for sure). I suppose it's just Robert Davi PLAYING Sanchez that once again...kinda cheapened things. Robert Davi seemed to be the go-to guy for small roles in B movies and TV shows all through the 80's. When I saw him in License to Kill, I thought to myself...."THAT guy??" He wasn't awful...it's just knowing him from other things that kinda wrecked it. It was another misstep by casting, though still not as bad as Wayne Newton...(or Joe Don Baker in Goldeneye).
I like your take on the cold and calculating tactics of Bond in this movie....(though I almost kinda resented Bond for letting Krest take a bum wrap....and get thrown into that pressurized chamber to die an agonizing death. Krest really didn't do much at all to cross Bond or Leiter, but he was made to suffer.
It's interesting about the various Bond eras. I'm watching Skyfall as I type this...and the opening sequence (pre-credits) alone has more action and jaw-dropping stunts than Dr. No, FRWL and Goldfinger combined. However...I think people love those 3 movies for the slow and cool burn, the espionage aspect...and, just the straight-up coolness of Connery, the standard by which all other Bonds will be measured and come up short.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9334)
3 years ago
There's something about true Cold War spy-thrillers. The Man Who Came in From the Cold is a classic example of this style. The early Bond films had something of that style, particularly the first two. Goldfinger established the more "outlandish" aspects of Bond's world, and I don't mind that - those trappings solidified James Bond as its own thing.
From Russia with Love is my favourite of the Bond pictures, and it really has that spy-against-spy vibe that works so well. It's internal.
Some of that love is the cold burn that they all have for sure. Bond turned into an action movie franchise at some point, but it didn't really start that way. They're really thrillers, not action flicks.
Every era of Bond has something to offer. The early stuff had the legendary Connery (I must confess, I wonder if some of his gravitas as Bond is simply insurmountable mythology), and they were more spy thrillers; the Moore era was fun and light; Dalton got gritty; Brosnan was more of an action man, always slick and cool and shooting; and now we're with Craig, who strives for the postmodern Bond, the reinvention.
My personal favourite is Connery's era, then Craig's, Dalton's, Brosnan's, and Moore's. Lazenby's an anomaly.
reply
share
Ripkens25 (1898)
3 years ago
Some excellent points, from a true Bond fan....which is to say, a fan who can appreciate each era on their own merits. Cheers to you.
reply
share