TImothy Dalton and John Glen

124»

Comments

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    I don't know how helpful this will be, but it's available through Warners 'Archive Collection' print on demand service. Unfortunately, they don't ship outside the US, but I got my copy through Ebay.

    4549sque.jpg
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Glen's directing style was more for Moore's darker Bonds than anything else. He forced some Moore-esque lightness into Dalton's run that Dalton really didn't need, and it hampered his Bond's credibility as a darker Bond. Glen just interfered with the whole Fleming-ness of Dalton's Bond, and I think that's probably what kept them from getting along amiably. Still, both The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are among the best of the franchise, both securing a position in the tail end of the top 10 in my opinion.
  • Posts: 250
    shamelord wrote: »
    You say these John Glen movies look cheap. But don't forget they were cheaply produced in comparison to the movies from the Brosnan era. Glen said several times he would loved to have the budget of the latter movies for his own. He did a very good job on Bond with what he had.

    Yeah, but as much as I like 3 of Glen's films he's still not a very dynamic filmmaker visually - you compare to Hunt or Young or even Gilbert and the visual setups are a lot more exciting, and then with Campbell you have another level altogether. And that's not just about budget - Campbell's work on the original Edge of Darkness is a lot more exciting than the contemporaneous work that Glen was doing.

    At the end of the day the Bond films of the 80s do have a bit of a sausage factory feel to them, and it's flabbergasting to look at LTK and realise it came out in the same year as Last Crusade and Batman. I think a big part of it though is how unexciting Alan Hume and Alec Mills' photographic work - surprise surprise Return of the Jedi is the least engaging visually of the OT Star Wars films as well.

    Perhaps Dalton begrudged that - he'd held fire with this franchise until he thought he could serve Fleming right and that was perhaps a bit at odds with what Cubby and Glen were about - the other thing is perhaps he felt a bit on the outer with there having been a direct continuity with the entire crew between AVTAK and TLD. I could be wrong but I suspect Lazenby got on better with Hunt (although not Cubby and Saltzman of course), and that might have been by virtue of Hunt being "new" in that position as well.

    It's nice that Cubby kept it like a big extended family but I'm glad that EON have moved with the times and understood the need to shake things up from film to film, and it's only now that we've got a director helming consecutive films but there's a pretty damn good justification for that outside of "safety".
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    shamelord wrote: »
    You say these John Glen movies look cheap. But don't forget they were cheaply produced in comparison to the movies from the Brosnan era. Glen said several times he would loved to have the budget of the latter movies for his own. He did a very good job on Bond with what he had.

    The 80s films look embarrassingly cheap especially compared to the competition.

    Octopussy probably the best looking one though.

    Glen was never my choice ...his action sequences were ok but again not any better than the competition. His pacing overall was too slow. A Bond fan like me should never be bored in sections of every film.

    The acting seemed to get progressively worse along with the quality of actor they could recruit with the exception of Walken and Jordan.

    Everything in the 80s was subpar even including M. Just not much there.

    Even a marginal director could have done better with FYEO. By the time we reached TLD and LTK the quality was even worse. Two of the cheapest more poorly acted films of the series. Waste of Dalton and what he might could have contributed.

    Hate to say it but watch the private jet scene in QoS ..listen to the nuances, the subtext, the acting... etc. That's a directed scene in yes a misguided movie but still steps above what we got from Glen.

    Oh and I'm sorry @Shamelord but they had plenty of money. TLD had a budget of 32 million. Enough not to look cheap and to hire a qualified director.

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    FourDot wrote: »
    shamelord wrote: »
    You say these John Glen movies look cheap. But don't forget they were cheaply produced in comparison to the movies from the Brosnan era. Glen said several times he would loved to have the budget of the latter movies for his own. He did a very good job on Bond with what he had.

    Yeah, but as much as I like 3 of Glen's films he's still not a very dynamic filmmaker visually - you compare to Hunt or Young or even Gilbert and the visual setups are a lot more exciting, and then with Campbell you have another level altogether. And that's not just about budget - Campbell's work on the original Edge of Darkness is a lot more exciting than the contemporaneous work that Glen was doing.

    At the end of the day the Bond films of the 80s do have a bit of a sausage factory feel to them, and it's flabbergasting to look at LTK and realise it came out in the same year as Last Crusade and Batman. I think a big part of it though is how unexciting Alan Hume and Alec Mills' photographic work - surprise surprise Return of the Jedi is the least engaging visually of the OT Star Wars films as well.

    Perhaps Dalton begrudged that - he'd held fire with this franchise until he thought he could serve Fleming right and that was perhaps a bit at odds with what Cubby and Glen were about - the other thing is perhaps he felt a bit on the outer with there having been a direct continuity with the entire crew between AVTAK and TLD. I could be wrong but I suspect Lazenby got on better with Hunt (although not Cubby and Saltzman of course), and that might have been by virtue of Hunt being "new" in that position as well.

    It's nice that Cubby kept it like a big extended family but I'm glad that EON have moved with the times and understood the need to shake things up from film to film, and it's only now that we've got a director helming consecutive films but there's a pretty damn good justification for that outside of "safety".

    I think TLD when it comes to location, is proper Bond adventure movie and no second unit stuff either, even with a reduced budget its quite incredible how much Bond gets around in one film. For me Robert Brown lacked the stature of M. Of course following the great Bernard Lee was never going to be easy. TLD the story is great. LTK was woeful IMO. I post previously Dalton was let down by a poor supporting cast and lack of ideas on his second film. But yet I could never envisage Dalton or Bronson's Bond coming up against Blofeld and Spectre.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,425
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    shamelord wrote: »
    You say these John Glen movies look cheap. But don't forget they were cheaply produced in comparison to the movies from the Brosnan era. Glen said several times he would loved to have the budget of the latter movies for his own. He did a very good job on Bond with what he had.

    The 80s films look embarrassingly cheap especially compared to the competition.

    Octopussy probably the best looking one though.

    Glen was never my choice ...his action sequences were ok but again not any better than the competition. His pacing overall was too slow. A Bond fan like me should never be bored in sections of every film.

    The acting seemed to get progressively worse along with the quality of actor they could recruit with the exception of Walken and Jordan.

    Everything in the 80s was subpar even including M. Just not much there.

    Even a marginal director could have done better with FYEO. By the time we reached TLD and LTK the quality was even worse. Two of the cheapest more poorly acted films of the series. Waste of Dalton and what he might could have contributed.

    Hate to say it but watch the private jet scene in QoS ..listen to the nuances, the subtext, the acting... etc. That's a directed scene in yes a misguided movie but still steps above what we got from Glen.

    Oh and I'm sorry @Shamelord but they had plenty of money. TLD had a budget of 32 million. Enough not to look cheap and to hire a qualified director.

    I think TLD had a budget of $40m and LTK has $32m.

    I think $40m then was still a pretty big budget and TLD to be fair feels like a pretty big production with lots of good locations and action sequences.

    I agree that there's something a bit lacking in terms of photography and production design during the Glen era, but I actually think his films are pretty entertaining. There is something quite enjoyable about the more old fashioned pace and the emphasis on coherent storytelling, compared to the wham bam thank you ma'am approach we often see today.

  • Posts: 250
    LTK was woeful IMO. I post previously Dalton was let down by a poor supporting cast and lack of ideas on his second film.

    Can't go with you there. Soto is not good but Sanchez's rogues gallery is great, from the ultra-unpleasant Zerbe to Don't Touch Jimmy! to Del Toro and Davi himself. And while Soto is admittedly terrible, Carey Lowell is perfect - and that speaks to the fact that the film is chockers with fresh ideas, chiefly that of Bond being in over his head and for once not being the one in control of any given situation - Bouvier saves him time after time after time since she's emotionally detached, she effectively inhabits the Bond stance.

    That and the Yojimbo takedown of the operation keep the film fresh on an ideas level. But it's not an overly pleasant experience and Glen's impulses often yield the wrong result.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    B grade actors... Krest part written with Dennis Hopper in mind I think I read. Well they certainly didn't get Hopper.

    Also read that they approached Roger Spottiswoode to direct LTK but he declined because he wasn't sure what they were trying to accomplish with Dalton.

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    FourDot wrote: »
    LTK was woeful IMO. I post previously Dalton was let down by a poor supporting cast and lack of ideas on his second film.

    Can't go with you there. Soto is not good but Sanchez's rogues gallery is great, from the ultra-unpleasant Zerbe to Don't Touch Jimmy! to Del Toro and Davi himself. And while Soto is admittedly terrible, Carey Lowell is perfect - and that speaks to the fact that the film is chockers with fresh ideas, chiefly that of Bond being in over his head and for once not being the one in control of any given situation - Bouvier saves him time after time after time since she's emotionally detached, she effectively inhabits the Bond stance.

    That and the Yojimbo takedown of the operation keep the film fresh on an ideas level. But it's not an overly pleasant experience and Glen's impulses often yield the wrong result.

    LTK - Wayne Newton C'mon! his character is ridiculous. Soto awful. Del Toro granted great actor, nowhere near enough screen time. Robert Brown as M lacks the authority of Bernard Lee. When The plot made the film feel like Miami Vice rather than Bond. The idea of Bond going rogue, agree unique not done previously, no MI6 scenes your back bone MI6 cast which means Daltons time on screen alone had to be enough to excite and for me its sadly lacking. I think the films work best when they bring in the backroom politic scenes with M's blind faith in his man despite pressure from government ministers. Something that returned with strength in Craig era. Funny enough I feel the same way about QOS another rogue adventure. TLD over LTK for me.
  • Posts: 11,425
    LTK and QOS have a lot in common. Both flawed, but decent and underrated entries IMO.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed, oddly on first seeing them I hated them Both. Only
    after several viewings did I come to like them, LTK especially.
  • Posts: 11,425
    DrGorner wrote: »
    Agreed, oddly on first seeing them I hated them Both. Only
    after several viewings did I come to like them, LTK especially.

    I haves enjoyed QoS from the first time I saw it. Could never really understand all the hate. I like DC's parred back take on Bond - similar to CR and much better than his performance in SF IMO.

    LTK took me time to appreciate but I now have it as a mid-ranker. Some very enjoyable scenes. To me Dalton seems more at home in the Cold War early scenes of TLD though, which rank amongst the best in the series IMO.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Getafix wrote: »
    DrGorner wrote: »
    Agreed, oddly on first seieing them I hated them Both. Only
    after several viewings did I come to like them, LTK especially.

    I haves enjoyed QoS from the first time I saw it. Could never really understand all the hate. I like DC's parred back take on Bond - similar to CR and much better than his performance in SF IMO.

    LTK took me time to appreciate but I now have it as a mid-ranker. Some very enjoyable scenes. To me Dalton seems more at home in the Cold War early scenes of TLD though, which rank amongst the best in the series IMO.

    My thoughts exactly re TLD and Dalton. QOS grew on me, it's vital to the over all story of Dan's tenure.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    DrGorner wrote: »
    Agreed, oddly on first seieing them I hated them Both. Only
    after several viewings did I come to like them, LTK especially.

    I haves enjoyed QoS from the first time I saw it. Could never really understand all the hate. I like DC's parred back take on Bond - similar to CR and much better than his performance in SF IMO.

    LTK took me time to appreciate but I now have it as a mid-ranker. Some very enjoyable scenes. To me Dalton seems more at home in the Cold War early scenes of TLD though, which rank amongst the best in the series IMO.

    My thoughts exactly re TLD and Dalton. QOS grew on me, it's vital to the over all story of Dan's tenure.

    Yes, I am seeing SP tomorrow and am looking forward to seeing how it wraps up a few loose ends from QOS.
  • Posts: 250
    I'm a TLD > LTK person too, and I agree there's not enough infrastructure around, although I'm happy for it to be an M and Moneypenny-lite film so that you feel that absence, and I think Q coming in for comic relief damages the tone. What I wanted to see more of was Christopher Neame's character.
Sign In or Register to comment.