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
Since I love both eras, the ideal thing for me would have been the Dalton Era (1987-1993), with four films, and the Brosnan era (1995-2004) with five films.
TLD and GE have a similar vibe to them, in my opinion. Both top-notch films, with a sober style and tone to them, a strong feeling of intrigue (always enjoy seeing the respective villains' plans unfold), great European locations and fine action sequences. They're cut from the same cloth.
Is there nothing you like about GE? The villain, Zukovsky, the locations, the cinematography, the plot, the action sequences...
I find things to enjoy even in my least favorite Bond films.
To be totally honest I try to pretend the Brosnan films never happened. They're all pretty unwatchable from my perspective.
The character I see when Pierce slithers onto the set is not Bond for me. It's a light comedy late 80s TV action hero with over-coifured hair. The criticisms some people used to make of Rog I feel apply by a multiple of ten to Brozza. Worst Bond hands down. And the films are equally bad, if not worse than his performances.
To give Pierce (who I otherwise like) his due, he has since done interviews where his own appraisal of his take on Bond pretty much aligns with what I've always thought myself. So he's definitely nobodies fool and knows he never really defined his own take.
Do I like anything about GE? I struggle to think of anything. The title song is okay I suppose. I remember liking it at the time and looking forward to seeing the movie because of it.
Famke Jansen was great casting but I can't stand her Cruella Deville performance in GE and Xenia is an abysmal character IMO.
Hmm. Probably best I leave it there.
The vibe of TLD and GE is utterly different from where I'm sitting but each to their own.
I like Daniel Kleinmans title sequence for GE!...after that....!
That's deliberately inflammatory so please don't do it.
I bet it wouldn't take me long to find some @Getafix comments in the Brosnan appreciation thread. ;)
The thing is the suggestion that someone would be mad to consider GE as anything other than garbage is the bit that would provoke unnecessary argument.
I love GE.
I wouldn't say it's an unnecessary argument but perhaps one for another thread.
Agreed
I’m pretty sure he talks about the creative direction of the films. He would’ve liked the movies to be more “gritty” and this is the word he often uses and dark in tone.
He basically says what we all know, well maybe except you, which is that Brosnan was a fine choice for Bond, but the scripts weren’t cut from the right cloth because they focused too much on what was appealing and “hip” at the time.
@BT3366 Thanks for the intel. So I got around to rewatching TLD yesterday. I thoroughly enjoyed it after all these years (it’s been maybe 10 years since my last viewing!). I have written a few of these diatribes in the past, so thought I’d collect together some thoughts on TLD and share them below:
After a few years in the wilderness with overly farfetched plots, it’s a welcome surprise that the story of TLD is a true Cold War thriller. The film breaks away from mad billionaires and fantasy geopolitics, instead choosing to be set in a real world 1987, where the USSR is rift with internal dissent and bogged down in Afghanistan.
This is a Bond movie really powered by its plot. You are immediately thrown into a story about a KGB defector and the opening focuses on the safe extraction of that agent. Because it’s a Bond film, there is a certain flamboyance to the mise en scène of bringing the defector over. However, there is something tangibly real and tense about the scene. I feel much of that comes from Timothy Dalton, who approaches the sequence with a commitment that feels serious and business-like. His assertive and authoritative energy immediately reminds audiences that Bond is, in fact, a spy.
The defection scene is complimented by an equally flamboyant sequence where the KGB bring their agent back (though I’ll admit, the 1980’s milieu of these sequences has aged badly). Nonetheless, the stage is set for a terrific espionage film. Bond is sent to assassin the now rogue head of the KGB after he has allegedly reinitiated a decades old program from the days of Beria to kill western spies. We are even told Bond’s name is on the list.
The opening two acts of the film are terrifically executed. There is still that sense of glamour and excitement inherent to the Bond films. However, the heavier onus on pushing the Cold War elements makes the film far more engaging. The focus on this aspect of the film extends to the tone and look of the piece. There is a European tinge to the storytelling with the locations suiting the mood perfectly. Czechoslovakia feels oppressive, dank and tired. Austria is more romantic and feels appropriate for the more ‘fairytale’ aspect of Bond’s relationship with Kara. Meanwhile, Morocco is exotic and mysterious.
It’s somewhat disappointing that once the villains’ scheme is unspooled, that it’s fairly convoluted and dull. Also, the hard left the film takes when it goes to Afghanistan is jarring and awkward. Suddenly, this Cold War espionage story has made an odd detour and become a Desert Storm meets Indiana Jones picture. It’s also an oddly political storyline for a film set in 1987. Seemingly the film sides with the Afghan guerrilla warriors against the Russians. The overt political context at play here which feels uncomfortable and thorny at best. It’s made more disconcerting by how many other more interesting angles the story could have taken.
Nonetheless, the elements of the plot concerning Koskov’s fraudulent defection and the reemergence of Smiert Spionom are terrific. Even if they are under-served by the finale.
Most of this film’s successes are due to the contributions made by Timothy Dalton. TLD represented something of a ‘soft reboot’ of the series. Dalton’s take on the character modified the tone of the film and, in turn, we have is a more focussed outing.
This Bond is tougher and more assertive. He’s commanding and unpredictable. There is a cruel and callous streak running through him. Consider the Koskov extraction scene, or the hotel room confrontation with Pushkin (my personal favourite). These sequences show a slightly more edgy and provocative interpretation to the character.
The reason why Bond doesn’t kill Kara, despite his orders poses an interesting question. Clearly this 007 is no less lethal than we would expect, but there is a sensitivity to him. He is the ‘good assassin’, someone who is willing to embrace the fallout back in London based on his own personal judgement. It’s very much during this sequence that Dalton’s Bond ‘arrives’. You know that this isn’t the kind of film that will wink at the audience and Dalton’s manner immediately commands that you take him seriously. Entrusted to Moore, it would have been all over in a quick flurry of one-liners and raised eyebrows. But Dalton draws on Fleming's narrative to convey a sense of Bond's interior life.
The commitment and seriousness that Dalton imbues within Bond makes these moments conniving. He is able to perfectly channel the jaded spy that Fleming so aptly wrote about. I particularly enjoyed the mild notes of anger and insubordination he brings to the character.
Moreover, one of the great appeals of Dalton was his great ability to channel the main ingredients requisite of a Byronic hero. Whilst being alluringly dark, mysterious, and moody; Dalton also bought a soft thoughtfulness to the character.
Additionally, it's easy to believe that Kara would quickly become infatuated with him, as Dalton is not only beautiful but emits something both masculine and tender (especially when you looks at those twinkly and mercurial eyes). There’s a sense with Dalton that the Bond characterisation achieved an appealing maturity.
The camera really does love Dalton and, boy, does he look good in a tuxedo (especially when he pops up those lapels and goes into assassin mode). He photographs excellently, looking every part like the moody hero the Bronte sisters fascinated over. In particular, his voice really stands out, it has a soft velvety confidence to it. You instantly trust and believe the man.
Another aspect of his performance that is perhaps undervalued is quite how humorous he is. Perhaps some of the comedic asides don't gel perfectly, possibly due to the same creative team behind the Roger Moore films still on script duties. Nonetheless, Dalton's commitment to the character really brings Bond to life and encourages the audience to take it seriously.
The fact we are considering these aspects to the character is perhaps representative of Dalton’s more sombre, reflective acting style; he's less ironic than Sean Connery, less insistently suave than Roger Moore. After all, Dalton had few film or TV credits before doing Bond. Prior to that he was predominately a stage actor and it’s clear he takes the craft seriously, even when playing 007.
If I was to nitpick, I think Dalton may lack lightly in selling the physical aspects of the character. You'd have hoped that the film may have found ways to have Bond exert his derring-do a little more. Though, it’s refreshing to see an actor do his own stunts and who looks fit enough to be convincing performing them.
Kara Milovy is an interesting character - until she isn’t. Initially the film sets her up as the femme fatale, an early twist reveals that she is in fact an innocent that has naively been manipulated into acting for her boyfriend. Soon she finds herself manipulated once again by the hero of the piece. Eventually she sees the light and sides with the hero and helps him thwart the villain. It’s a fairly conventional trajectory and there are moments where Kara feels like nothing more than a bimbo who is out of her depth. However, prior to the Tangier scenes, Kara is an engaging and charming presence. Soon after, the film runs out of ideas on how to utilise the character. The whole “oh, James” shtick wears thin and feels repetitive in this new era for the franchise. Maryam d’Abo performance does oversell the naivety, which is a shame as she seem confident and edgy in interviews promoting the film. Instead, the film mostly throws her in unflattering clothing and never lets Kara ascend as a character.
What does work for the character is her chemistry with Dalton. There is an easy camaraderieship between the pair. Though, you do have to question Bond’s morality slightly. After all, he essentially uses his sexuality to manipulate Kara into giving away secrets about Koskov. Then throughout the film, he seemingly leads her to believe that he genuinely cares for her. The alternative suggestion would be that Bond genuinely does care for Kara. However, we never saw the character again.
Also, why is Kara so happy to cheat on her beloved boyfriend? The film frames both Bond and her relationship as ‘romantic’ but surely there is a moral point in question here that the film almost blindly ignores. The fact that after the film, I genuinely pondered if Bond had feelings for Kara or was using her as a means to an end is a testament to the film itself.
Now we move on to one of the chief issues of TLD, there is no central ‘villain’. We get two baddies this time out and whilst Jeroen Krabbe is great at being sleazy (only becoming mildly grating when overegging it later in the film) he isn’t interesting enough to hold our attention. Additionally, whilst Whittaker is a great character on paper, the execution is flat. He’s an eccentric fake ‘general’ who plays with toy soldiers, but never seems truly diabolical. So the film has a bad guy deficit that it doesn’t quite overcome.
The half-heartened inclusion of Felix Leiter was not advisable and John Terry scarcely makes anything close to an impression.
In spite of this, the real MVP in the supporting cast is John Rhys-Davies. It’s a shame that he never got a reprieve in these films. Pushkin is an intimidating and charismatic presence. His scenes with Dalton in Tangier are by far the most memorable and well-acted. It’s a credit to the writing that both Koskov and Pushkin (the good and bad KGB agents) are less arch than these characters are usually sketched in films.
The action sequences are exemplary as usual. John Glen was the master of staging terrific actions sequences that held little regard for health-and-safety. In particular, Glen always excelled with the ariel work in his films and with the awesome help of stunt gods, BJ Worth and Jake Lombard, we have some very special sequences. The moment with Bond and Necros outside the Boeing jet is particular highlight. It’s also nice to see a tricked out Aston Martin again, even though that pleasant drive through the mountains of Czechoslovakia escalates at a cartoonish rate.
Despite his action credentials, Glen’s staging of the dramatic sequences can be flat and unaccomplished. There are a number of sequences where he feels out-of-his-depth, with his bland ‘autopilot’ approach giving the film an anonymous and indistinct touch.
John Barry contributes a great score, but it’s still fairly middling considering his repertoire. Meanwhile, I’m finding the Maurice Binder title sequences more difficult to watch as they age. Moreover, I think it’s something of a sin that the fantastic A-Ha song is so brutally chopped up to fit inside the title sequence. The song is one of the cooler 1980's elements that has endured with this film, meanwhile the contributions of The Pretenders serves only to age the film further. I’d like to comment on Peter Lamont’s sets, but I can hardly remember any of them.
There is also a certain overhang from the Roger Moore days (the cello case, anyone?). These sequences seem less plausible, mainly as Dalton just doesn’t seem conformable trying to sell them.
Essentially, TLD is airport paperback of a film, nonetheless it’s immensely enjoyable. A certain crassness had crept into the franchise over the previous decade, and TLD allowed and encouraged audiences to take the character seriously once again.
As with Daniel Craig, who would later come to the rescue of a Bond grown over-reliant on CGI, Dalton's more nuanced and complex interpretation came at a time when 007 was in mortal danger. With each film from Moonraker on, Moore had become less. Dalton's debut marked a fresh start for a series that – after 25 years of martinis, girls and guns – many felt had shifted irrevocably towards self-parody. It's just a pity that his stay was so brief, because his approach allows Bond's relationships – most notably with Saunders, whose grisly assassination at a Vienna fairground is a source of real anger and distress to 007, but also with Kara and General Pushkin – to evolve in ways rarely seen in the earlier films.
Of course, breathing new life into the character by reconnecting him with his fictional roots would have counted for little without the customary array of gadgets and set-pieces, and here The Living Daylights does not disappoint. For the first time in 18 years, Bond is reunited with his beloved Aston Martin – on this occasion, the V8 Vantage. Q furnishes him with a keyring that fires stun gas, opens 90% of the world's locks, and has an explosive charge detonated by a wolf whistle. From the Rock of Gibraltar to Vienna and Morocco to Afghanistan, we're whisked to an array of extravagantly exotic locations. There's an outlandish car chase that, with Kara's cello case doubling as a toboggan, morphs into a yet more outlandish ski chase. And, naturally, Bond gets to grapple with a Soviet assassin – Necros, whose menace owes nothing to third nipples or dodgy dentistry – while hanging from the back of a plane.
About the only thing Bond doesn't do is get his leg over (enough). Aids, you see; apparently it scared the living daylights out of the poor man. Better late than never, I suppose. Still, there's an upside to 007's monogamy, and it may just explain how this much-maligned film has wheedled its way so irrevocably into my affections: uniquely in the world of Bond, it allows a vein of romantic adventure to develop that's real, not illusory (and this is reminiscent of Fleming's novels).
In theory, it's a quality all the Bond films should have, what with their beautiful settings and beautiful people, their idealised tales of good triumphing over evil. In practice, some films such as Die Another Day are bit of an embarrassment – an antediluvian catalogue of pantomime characters, a lazy camp script, poor direction and crap CGI. The Living Daylights is different; even from a quarter of a century away, there's nothing to sully the romantic air. It's no coincidence that the most recent Bond films are the closest in tone and in the spirit of Fleming.
Dalton bought the danger back to the character. He made Bond a serious character that was easy to invest in. He was handsome and charming in the way you would expect of Bond. But he was able to bring the character into 1980's and make Bond more edgy, introspective and angsty.
There's even a touch of Harrison Ford in his look. despite this, Dalton was the prototype for all the characters envisioned by the Bronte sisters. He embodied the characteristics of the brooding, dark and mysterious byronic hero.
Dalton has such a marvellous profile. The photo below is very evocative of the classic Hitchcock stories. It's a shame that audiences weren't ready for a more serious and sombre Bond in the 80's. Tim could have been a movie star.
Also........................found this amazing picture:
Though I have to confess the big faults of the series do still persist in TLD, namely the sequence where Kara falls for Bond and says something like "I've been thinking how it would be together this whole time". It's quite barf-worthy.
Plus Maryam d'Abo, for all her benefits, can't sell those kind of sequences. It doesn't help that Glen's blocking and direction is uninspired. Can anyone tell me if she was a star in the 1980's? What was she doing beforehand and did she generate much buzz after the film came out?
I think you could definitely play an argument that two of the main ingredients needed for the Bond formula - the "women" and the "villain" - are lacking here. However, I've read numerous reviews which appreciate this fact and argue the depictions are deliberately muted and intended to be more "real-world". What are our thoughts............................
Nonetheless, it's undeniable that Maryam d'Abo (great name, btw) is a beautiful woman. But does she have much screen presence?
Can someone explain the politics and rationale for the decision back in the 1980's. It's very unlike Eon to do something like this.
B...b...but of course. After they installed that legitimate puppet government themselves, of course.
They won a free election. You got it backwards.
Great shots of Maryam! Kara remains one of my fave Bond girls. I remember Roger Ebert questioning whether she could carry the weight of this role since there was only really Bond girl in this film (not counting Linda). I always thought she was great here.
https://images.app.goo.gl/Ld43kdTrCt44carX8
https://images.app.goo.gl/aakxuCzEwdsyWswm7
For my money D'Abo works brilliantly with Dalton.
On the technical and visual side Glen's films are a bit workaday but he tells a story very well and understands how to weave action into a suspenseful and entertaining narrative. He's a better 'Bond director' than Campbell IMO.