It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Strawberry Jam is from Fleming's TLD novel and shows how tense Bond is. He actually nails the flavour the book had in that scene.
Maybe Bain123 likes Coronation Street acting better:) I always though acting was dramatic and theatrical. But thanks to weaker talented soap stars, people are confused these days. Non-acting passes for acting in some films.
I think the "Take me to him" was a bit overdone to be honest but I know I'm going to get eaten up for that.
One of the issues I've had Dalton is that you can tell he's read the books and has tried to copy the literary Bond's expressions. On the one hand great on the other it isn't natural.
I just don't get the feeling people seem to cast Dalton much. At least in his post Bond career. Oldman, by contrast, is seen fairly regularly.
It would be interesting to see Dalton in a Roman Polanski film but RP has never used him. Now who else do we know around here that he has used? :-?
;)
The fact that actors like Ian McKellan and Sue Johnston are queuing up to appear in it is a bit of give away as well that Corrie is the actors' soap of choice.
Maybe - in which case I'm wrong.
Pierce Brosnan was used by Polanski. But Brosnan was asked to play a politician who is a moron and not too bright. And he was playing the actorly vanity of Tony Blair who was a salesman of lies.
Not that I am saying Brosnan is stupid in real life. He just suited the image for the role and Polanski plays on that.
Polanski casts according to the script not necessarily who he likes. He cast Johnny Depp in The Ninth Gate because he wanted to against Depp's image of likeability. He saw Depp as the exact character from the book.
Indeed he was. There's an irony in this role too. He's playing a man who was once popular in the eyes of the public and then pretty much cast aside - sound familiar?
Exactly @Bain123 Dalton would have been wrong for that part and way too strong for it. Brosnan's character in the film is seen as weak and a prisoner of his own making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=CIaWo-BlBjs&NR=1
He is not far off from the truth of how Hollywood is. But he like Dalton is a great actor. Both individual and unmistakeable. I love them both.
A journeyman director like John Glen probably wouldn't say boo to a goose, but when Dalton had his pivitol scene in LTK when he meets Sanchez it was an embarrassing few minutes watching him scowl, swivel his eyes, snort through his nose, swivel his eyes again, giggle menacingly, breath heavilly through his nose (again) and swivel his eyes some more. He didn't come across as tough and knowing (which was intended), whereas Robert Davi barely moved a muscle and left him for dead in the acting stakes.
In TLD even with a gas mask on when we can only see his eyes, he manages to overact.
But that's my opinion, and it hasn't changed since I went to see both those films twice on release.
I liked him in TLD but it took me a few years to put my finger on why he didn't quite tick the box. And it wasn't because he was ahead of his time and I wasn't ready for a serious Bond. ;-)
I do think Glen was in over his head with Dalton and Craig would have found it harder in the same circumstance. This is why they change director so frequently in the new Bonds.
The scene where he meets Sanchez is fantastic. The context is that Bond is trying to get inside his organisation and needs to appeal to Sanchez and make a strong case for himself. Sanchez is not a patient man and time is of the essence for Bond. Too relaxed and he would not walk out alive which is implied strongly.
Naturally, Sanchez being in the position of power like it is an almost job interview scene but in the crime sense, then of course Sanchez is going to be laid back. He is the boss and could not have played it any other way.
Could you imagine if Bond just sat there looking gormless and said nothing hence there being no point of him asking to be brought to Sanchez by Lupe
Dalton sells Bond's arrogance when he makes subtle insults about the men in his organisation not being hard to beat. I think you are less than fair in your assessment. Dalton's snarling was a snarl of condescension to Sanchez's men.
In the TLD gas mask scene, he uses his face to express he is amused and amazed by Q without telling him so. It is not over-acting. Dalton is just paying attention as Bond.
You may not like Dalton as Bond and I respect that. But it is subjective. Some prefer the Roger Moore style, some Lazenby and that's the whole point. But to me Dalton gave it a fine shot and Cubby knew what he is doing.
LTK was ahead of it's time for a Bond film in terms of violence and grit. Many people complained how Bond was now not appropriate for the family like he once was. That's a fact. I did not see LTK in the cinema because people said it was horribly violent and that kept me away.
Glen and Dalton did clash, because they did not see eye to eye on many aspects of the character and Dalton had to meet him half way. Dalton in Glen's book would not be happy with some of the dailies he saw, but Glen said they would not be altered or re-filmed. Despite Dalton's wishes.
Why Glen was not going to be director for the Bond due for release in '91 is because Dalton did not want him.
Glen carried over baggage from the Moore era and that also confused audiences considering the change was radical. I see scenes in TLD which are blatantly an overhang of a style that would suit the Moore era better.
Get ready to "howl at the moon" NicNac ;)
Seriously I think in the actual meeting with Sanchez Dalton is solid (the "more of a problem eliminator" line is good). However I see what you mean in the sequence before that in the casino with Lupe. Something about aspects of his performance don't really sit right with me either. To me it just seems like he's trying a bit too hard to act angry. The constant scowl, the way he looks round dramatically and his sharp body movements.
I also see what you mean about his laugh. At times it sounds a bit "put on" oddly :-?
Sean's portrayal is fantastic and Dalton said only a fool would try to follow Connery or be him.
But it was the novels that Cubby and Harry saw huge possibilities and a fascinating character. Connery admitted he never liked the hero in the Fleming books and thought he was bland.
You mention that Bond is not about realism. But the books are based on stories from real life.
And bang on, the Bond of the books shows it is not a glamorous life and is not happy. He is an angry, obsessive character. He does not trust women or bed them as women are how spies were caught. Oldest trick in the book and usually lead to you being tortured then executed.
Dalton by showing a Fleming like Bond also proves that many fans don't like Fleming. Fine, but who is the character supposed to be based on? The writer or an actor like Connery who could not stand the man in the books and added his own personality traits instead.
Many think Dracula wears a cape with red underneath as well as sexy. But he does not in the novels and is the opposite of sexy. He is a monster and like Bond, is not accepted for the authors image of the character.
But Fleming is the fountain where the Bond stories come from. And many to this day still read the books. Roger Moore's films are enjoyable but that is not Fleming by any stretch.
Cinematic Bond is a great character, but after countless portrayals by Connery and Moore, surely a different flavour can be added.
And the Bond bedding in the early movies was to appeal to a younger audience who could see their own fantasies lived out. It made the character more sellable as well as the humour helping too.
If the focus is Sean, then why did you go out of your way to criticise Dalton? So none of us are off track but counter arguing your assertions and why though you are entitled to your opinion, they are wrong and very unfair.
Also you are blaming Dalton for decisions like the women bedding, where we were at the height of an AIDS epidemic and the producers wanted to adapt to that and show they are not insensitive or ignorant.
If you understand the history of Dalton's tenure then you would know that he was supposed to make three films.He wanted to put the other cinematic elements in the third and was aware of those things you mentioned after he did LTK.
As much as I enjoyed Goldfinger again (recently watched the blue ray) I was almost shocked by the shallow performance and especially the huge difference to Dr.No and FRWL.
I enjoy playful super-Bond at times and I get your points sirseanisbond, but I don't agree with all. Especially not with Fleming being wrong and "Book-Bond" the less interesting or worse character.
I love Sean as Bond at least til Thunderball, but not less than equally as much do I love Flemings Bond and thus Tim's and Craig's portrayal .
I have to say I think though Goldfinger was the first blockbuster Bond film, it is not my favourite Connery performance. I loved him in his first two as well as DAF the most.
DAF is not a serious take, but there is something about his couldn't give a damn performance that I find so interesting. And being a Dalton fan, that is hard to believe for some. But I like either total camp or dead serious. I don't like them mixed up in the same film.
In other words, if they want to do camp Bond, then I say go all the way as long as the wit is there. But in serious Bond, camp can dilute the story when it is added in.
True, but why I tolerate it is because it is so aware it is ridiculous. But had Diamonds pretended to be like a true follow on from OHMSS, then it would have been terrible.
Connery in the scene with Felix and then at the undertakers is super good. The villains are so Carry On movie style but being British, I get huge enjoyment.
The PTS has some amazing gags and Connery sure is the medallion man and hardly comes across like a man who champions women's rights. I mean the bra strangling scene now would get the worst outrage. Back then, you had total freedom.
I will say that the humour of those Bond's beats anything I see today in many films not including Bond.
I know what you mean. but it has an old school charm. And not just the one liners but the face expressions.
I used to hate that style Bond but appreciated it more after seeing the attempts in the nineties to bring it back. But the writers were not as good as Maibaum or Mankiewicz in terms of really using witty dialogue.
I think the old films could set it up better and were not doing it self-consciously like in a this is what the audience expects.
My concern with new Bond is that they want to replicate that and I don't think you can in the context of the newer films. In old Bond it was so fresh and suited the acting styles of the time.
To use one liners these days, they have to be outstandingly witty and not generic. Schwarzenegger films used the one liner and they fall flat as a pancake.
Glad you see it. I know there are fan calls saying Craig needs more humour, but him being in different films is going to mean at best we get it for the sake of it rather than because it is necessary.
I remember Craig saying that since the advent of Austin Powers, it has become almost impossible to use humour in the way it once was in Bond. He called it double winking and being too obvious now that Austin Powers exposed it and took the mick.
The Brosnan films use too much tackiness which was not what I noticed as much in the Connery films.
I guess this is the synthesis of what I was originally trying to get at. First of all, Dalton is the best cinematic representative of Fleming's Bond, and thus can be used as a surrogate for comparing Fleming's book character to the film versions. Secondly, Because both Dalton's Bond and the one from the books seem to share a similar lack of that certain 'je-ne-sais-quoi', it points to a some sort of flaw in the original character which Fleming created. Thirdly, the Bond character would never have become as popular as it did without Sean bringing his personal swagger to the role, which ultimately changed Bond from something sinister into something sexy. Though each film is a constant battle between these two essential ingredients, Bond movies are just better when the sensual elements out-weigh the menacing ones, and that is why Both Fleming and Dalton got Bond wrong, where as Sean, George, Roger, and Pearce all got it right, for the most part. Craig's verdict is still out because he's not finished with his film tenure yet, but if he were to step out now I'd have to rank him second to last after Dalton for his lack of swag, but that's a whole other thing entirely and this is not the time or the place for me to be trying to explain that. The point is Sean's classic quartet, DN, FRWL, GF, and TB are just absolutely Bond-tastic because they were the films that pioneered the film series and Sean's performances in them simply cannot be beat because he didn't just set the bar for Bond films to come, he was genesis and everything that the Bond character has become in our modern cultural lexicon can be trace back to him. Sean Is Bond!