Was Tim Dalton ahead of his time?

124678

Comments

  • "Of all the Bonds Dalton seemed the least alluring the members of the opposite sex."
    An ex-girlfriend of mine (back in the day) thought Dalton was the bee's knees... He practically made her swoon. She had a thing for the dark, brooding type, I suppose.

    Dalton's casting as 007 meant we could actually watch the Bond pics together (and got her interested in the entire series).

  • Posts: 1,052
    I think I remember Connery saying that he thought Dalton took the role too seriously, but that's just his opinion, at the end of the day he played it his way, his performance was nothing like Connery or Moore, you can't really fault him for that.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think I remember Connery saying that he thought Dalton took the role too seriously, but that's just his opinion, at the end of the day he played it his way, his performance was nothing like Connery or Moore, you can't really fault him for that.

    Exactly. I suppose it's a matter of what works and what doesn't though. As I said before no one is going to argue with the man who defined the role and who, 50 years after first playing the character, is STILL widely regarded as the best Bond.

    By the time Dalton came in Bond WAS an icon. He was bigger than the character in the books. Not knocking Dalton - I think what he did was good - but I can kind of see where Connery is coming from at the same time.

    People want their Bond to be "fun" and I think that's why Connery, Moore, Brosnan and even Craig succeeded where Dalton fell short. They had a slightly more playful touch to them and they're more accessable in many respects because of that.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    If Connery liked Brosnan that's fine. It's his own opinion and I'm sure Brosnan was elated to hear it as anyone would be. But I think him "bringing new layers to the character" is alot of bs and proves Connery obviosuly didn't read too far into it. What layers did he bring? What new aspects did he bring to the table that weren't already explored by the other 4 actors? I've never had this answered because Brosnan simply brought nothing. He took half of Connery and mixed it with half of Moore and gave us a boring retread more fit to be parodied than taken seriously.

    I think one thing that makes Brosnan a bit more distinctive though is that, unlike any of the other 4 Bond actors at the time, he actually experienced real torment and suffered from a loss that was close to him. Whether you like him or not that surely adds a little bit more of a poigniancy and authenticity to the role. It may not be "new" per-say but IMO it's unique and worth noting.

    Dalton did that 6-8 years before only with better acting chops. Afterall that was kinda the whole point of LTK.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I'm talking about Brosnan himself and his OWN experiences in real life. None of the other actors had gone through the stuff Broz did.

    Oh yeah - LTK - where he loses it because of a friend he'd only worked with once in the previous 14 years ;)
  • Posts: 1,492
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm talking about Brosnan himself and his OWN experiences in real life. None of the other actors had gone through the stuff Broz did.

    So his performance is meant to be more piquant because he lost Cassandra Harris to cancer?

    Well, it didn't show in his performance because he is not a strong actor. He isnt. He's like Moore light comedy and looking good is his forte not conveying emotion. Craig and Dalts brought more emotion to the role because they are heavyweight actors. They have earned their dues with Shakespeare and the London stage. Brozz came out of drama school and went straight into Remington Steele.

    There is nothing edgy and raw about any of Brozzers performances because he isnt that kind of actor. He is a pretty boy who can throw a good oneliner.

    Thats all.

  • edited January 2012 Posts: 1,778
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm talking about Brosnan himself and his OWN experiences in real life. None of the other actors had gone through the stuff Broz did.

    Oh yeah - LTK - where he loses it because of a friend he'd only worked with once in the previous 14 years ;)

    In regards to Felix Leiter yeah we hadn't seen much of him but atleast he was a character the audience knew and had seen before. Brosnan would get all sad over the death's of the likes of Terri Hatcher.

    And I don't think Brosnan's real life experiences really matter. All that matters is what's on screen which was nothing new or innovative for the character. If he did bring those experiences to the screen and use them for inspiration I shutter to think how bad his performances would've been if he didn't have all that inspiration.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm talking about Brosnan himself and his OWN experiences in real life. None of the other actors had gone through the stuff Broz did.

    So his performance is meant to be more piquant because he lost Cassandra Harris to cancer?

    Well, it didn't show in his performance because he is not a strong actor. He isnt. He's like Moore light comedy and looking good is his forte not conveying emotion. Craig and Dalts brought more emotion to the role because they are heavyweight actors. They have earned their dues with Shakespeare and the London stage. Brozz came out of drama school and went straight into Remington Steele.

    There is nothing edgy and raw about any of Brozzers performances because he isnt that kind of actor. He is a pretty boy who can throw a good oneliner.

    Thats all.

    I think he did a few theatre things between drama school and Steele but nothing nearly as heavyweight as Dalton.

    I do think there is something genuinely quite "sad" about Brozza though and that did (albeit occasionally) come through during his time as Bond. I'm not saying he's as good an actor as Dalton or Craig but there is something quite fragile about him.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm talking about Brosnan himself and his OWN experiences in real life. None of the other actors had gone through the stuff Broz did.

    So his performance is meant to be more piquant because he lost Cassandra Harris to cancer?

    Well, it didn't show in his performance because he is not a strong actor. He isnt. He's like Moore light comedy and looking good is his forte not conveying emotion. Craig and Dalts brought more emotion to the role because they are heavyweight actors. They have earned their dues with Shakespeare and the London stage. Brozz came out of drama school and went straight into Remington Steele.

    There is nothing edgy and raw about any of Brozzers performances because he isnt that kind of actor. He is a pretty boy who can throw a good oneliner.

    Thats all.

    I think he did a few theatre things between drama school and Steele but nothing nearly as heavyweight as Dalton.

    I do think there is something genuinely quite "sad" about Brozza though and that did (albeit occasionally) come through during his time as Bond. I'm not saying he's as good an actor as Dalton or Craig but there is something quite fragile about him.

    I think that fragility (not sure if that's a word) is just his male model face and lack of masculinity. His acting never made me feel sorry for the character as he comes off as too snarky.

    Again I've the question several times of what Brosnan brought to the role and how he made it unique and even huge Brosnan fans have a hard time answering it.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I too am not sure exactly what he brought to the role that was entirely "different" but I think if I were to define him he would be "the cocky Bond" or "the greatest hits" Bond.

    I think even Brosnan has admitted that he felt in the shadow of his predecessors but nonetheless I still like him. As someone who likes Bond being cocky and a bit smarmy I still enjoy watching him.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I remembering being struck by how utterly unmoved Bond seems when Teri Hatcher dies (cheers from audience!) at the start of TND. If this was Brosnan channeling his inner-pain, then god help us.

    What Brosnan uniquely brought to the Bond part was actually self-conscious and awful screen acting. He grimaces, grunts and gurns his way through the films with zero screen presence. He was cast for his looks and sadly they weren't enough. I suspect - since he seems like a nice and not overly egotistical guy - that deep down he knows he was totally miscast. Previous posters have claimed that Brozza feels he never quite nailed the role - while a massive understatement, that pretty much sums it up.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Well this thread is now bashing Brosnan because op petpeeves. Dalton wasn't doing to well in the box-office compared to Brosnan who is apperently a lesser actor to some folks. He still can carry a leading role while Dalton is much better as a supporting actor it is charisma thing that the general cinema audiences pay money for.

    Dalton did his thing, TLD was still very written like a Moore ofr Brosnan vehicle and LTK was undoubtely meant to get the grittiness of then popular shows like Miami Vice, only they did it better and had charisma in the leading parts.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Brosnan did ok and seemed to get pretty good reviews at the time, I like Dalton but I'm not sure the public would have been that interested if he had made a third film but who knows, for all the hate he is getting no one can deny that Brosnans films were succesful and pretty well received at time of release.
  • Brosnan did ok and seemed to get pretty good reviews at the time, I like Dalton but I'm not sure the public would have been that interested if he had made a third film but who knows, for all the hate he is getting no one can deny that Brosnans films were succesful and pretty well received at time of release.

    Goldeneye was well recieved. The rest all got mixed reviews.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Goldeneye was well recieved. The rest all got mixed reviews.

    As do most 007 movies the last 20 years. It is fashionable to put big franchises down and to be honest the 007 movies are not faultless perfect movies, they are entertainment for the masses. And quite a few critics are pretentious pr*cks that consider themselves better than the general audience.

  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    BAIN123 wrote:
    If Connery liked Brosnan that's fine. It's his own opinion and I'm sure Brosnan was elated to hear it as anyone would be. But I think him "bringing new layers to the character" is alot of bs and proves Connery obviosuly didn't read too far into it. What layers did he bring? What new aspects did he bring to the table that weren't already explored by the other 4 actors? I've never had this answered because Brosnan simply brought nothing. He took half of Connery and mixed it with half of Moore and gave us a boring retread more fit to be parodied than taken seriously.

    I think one thing that makes Brosnan a bit more distinctive though is that, unlike any of the other 4 Bond actors at the time, he actually experienced real torment and suffered from a loss that was close to him. Whether you like him or not that surely adds a little bit more of a poigniancy and authenticity to the role. It may not be "new" per-say but IMO it's unique and worth noting.

    Brosnan is the first to show actual emotion- the statue park scene with Alec and Bond in Goldeneye, the beach scene in goldeneye, when he drinks in TND in the apartment to forget all the negativness, his confrintation between Electra in TWINE asking her to call off Renard and killing her in cold blood was something that none of the other bonds have done (unless you count the connery moment in NSNA) and the montage of his torture when he was decreasing his heart beat in DAD)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Didn't all that 'pain' and 'hurt' get a bit tedious with Brozza? His face was constantly screwed up into a sweating, gurning contortion. He had no suave sophistication about him and made everything look difficult. IMO.
  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    Didn't all that 'pain' and 'hurt' get a bit tedious with Brozza? His face was constantly screwed up into a sweating, gurning contortion. He had no suave sophistication about him and made everything look difficult. IMO.

    Not really. At least he's putting a bit of effort into it and showing a bit of emotion

    I often find myself pulling faces when I lift something heavy.

    Btw the beginning is funny:
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    Getafix wrote:
    Didn't all that 'pain' and 'hurt' get a bit tedious with Brozza? His face was constantly screwed up into a sweating, gurning contortion. He had no suave sophistication about him and made everything look difficult. IMO.

    Rather some campy expressions from Brosnan than the constant emotionless pouting from Craig,

  • Posts: 11,425
    I'm not going to defend Craig. He's alright but hasn't convinced me yet. But Brozza was the pits. If I picture him now it's that huffing and puffing face he does all the time as if he's got life-threatening constipation.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Getafix wrote:
    Didn't all that 'pain' and 'hurt' get a bit tedious with Brozza? His face was constantly screwed up into a sweating, gurning contortion. He had no suave sophistication about him and made everything look difficult. IMO.


    Rather some campy expressions from Brosnan than the constant emotionless pouting from Craig,

    Well, what you call emotionless is called acting as opposed to overacting by many. But yes, you actually have to look to see, what's going on behind the eyes and to catch his often rather subtle way of acting. Some miss that, BECAUSE we are used to a lot of overacting by all sorts of actors.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    What Craig does in non-Bond movies like Munich, Layer Cake, Defiance... THAT is acting. What Craig does in CR and QOS is not acting, it's just pouting.
  • Posts: 11,189
    What Craig does in non-Bond movies like Munich, Layer Cake, Defiance... THAT is acting. What Craig does in CR and QOS is not acting, it's just pouting.

    He does have a bit of a reputation for being a pouter :))

    One review for Cowboys and Aliens said he looked like he was constantly sucking a lemon.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2012 Posts: 15,713
    Yes Craig reached new limits of 'emotionless acting' in Cowboys & Aliens... The movie was entertaining... but Craig sleepwalked through the entire film.

    IMO Craig's best performance is in 'Dragon Tattoo'.
  • Posts: 6,601
    What Craig does in non-Bond movies like Munich, Layer Cake, Defiance... THAT is acting. What Craig does in CR and QOS is not acting, it's just pouting.

    Its not JUST pouting, far from it, but you are right, he does do it. Mostly when he is doing action like running and the sort.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Yes Craig reached new limits of 'emotionless acting' in Cowboys & Aliens... The movie was entertaining... but Craig sleepwalked through the entire film.

    IMO Craig's best performance is in 'Dragon Tattoo'.

    I must admit I agree with you there. Harrison Ford upstages him completely.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Yes Craig reached new limits of 'emotionless acting' in Cowboys & Aliens... The movie was entertaining... but Craig sleepwalked through the entire film.

    IMO Craig's best performance is in 'Dragon Tattoo'.

    In a while, yes, but then, it was an entirely different vehicle and one to give an actor a much better chance to showcase his acting chops.

    Re C&A - I though he was just what the roles needed, but thought the film was crap, meaning weak script.


  • edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I do think Ford was the more fun of the two in that film - the way he hammed it up was more engaging IMO.

    Anyway, back to Dalton
  • Posts: 6,601
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I do think Ford was the more fun of the two in that film - the way he hammed it up was more engaging IMO.

    Anyway, back to Dalton

    That was probably the plan, but I am still :-O how all this talent could come up with flawed film like that. I mean, Spielberg, Howard, Gazer etc etc. They should be able to do better and recognize aq weak script, that doesn't really make any sense.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Was it a Ron Howard movie?
Sign In or Register to comment.