SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1192022242547

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    1. SF
    2. TB
    3. GF
    4. CR
    5. FRWL

    Those five, to me, are head and shoulders above the rest and remain locked in place. It starts there. After that, the other 19 are constantly jockeying for position.

    6-13 are generally: DN, YOLT, OHMSS, LALD, TSWLM, QoS, and SP, and then there's my guilty pleasure, DAF, which is so awful that it is a joy to watch. These can be in any order at any time. My favorite of this bunch is usually the one I am watching at that very moment.

    You'll notive that all of Connery and all of Craig are in the top 13. That's not an accident. ;)
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited April 2020 Posts: 732
    Skyfall definitely makes it into my list - I am curious where NTTD will end
    1. GF
    2. TB
    3. CR
    4. QoS
    5. OHMSS
    6. FRWL
    7. SF
    8. DN
    9. LALD
    10. YOLT
    My Top 2 never move around and they most likely never will. I am curious of course who will come after Craig but I doubt he will have the same kind of impact as Connery’s and Craig‘s movies had on me.

    My Top 2 made me a Bond fan (aged 11 in TV reruns) - CR, QoS and SF cemented me as a hardcore fan (again) while during the tenures of Moore, Dalton and Brosnan I became more or less a casual fan and kept mostly rewatching Connery‘s first 4 movies for most of the time. OHMSS had to grow on me, too. It was only after I re-read all of Flemings‘s novels and after QoS that I started to really appreciate it.

    One reason (out of many) why I became such a fan of Craig’s take on the role is that Craig‘s Bond became more relateable to me age-wise (he‘s just a few years my senior) and his whole take on the role was just refreshing.

    Nobody can - in my book - beat King Connery but Craig comes close due to many reasons. Skyfalls only fault IMHO is that it was not Craig‘s last film to bookend his tenure ... but of course not in 2012 and instead have 2 more standalone adventures in between QoS and then Skyfall in 2015
  • Posts: 11,425
    Too much Craig and not enough Moore and Dalton in that top 10.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Only one Moore and one Dalton must need my head seeing to again, oh look GF snuck in there.

    GF only really edges DN for me because of Barry and the PTS, I really don't like Monty Norman's score it sounds like something from the 50's, the songs are good but his incidental music could have come from anything.

    Barry invested the films with an identity something that made them standout, without him the films just wouldn't have the feel they do from FRWL onwards.
    1. OHMSS
    2. CR
    3. FRWL
    4. SF
    5. TB
    6. SWLM
    7. TLD
    8. QOS
    9. GF
    10. DN

    Barry for me is so integral to why Bond made the impact it did and why Bond stood out.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,118
    1. LTK
    2. OHMSS

    Personal stakes when that was still fresh, a well-written story and fabulous stunts.

    3. TLD
    4. TB

    A Cold War spy thriller and an exotic Bond v. SPECTRE adventure. Atmosphere is the key word here for me.

    5. QOS
    007 as a work of art.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Shardlake wrote: »
    OHMSS is no 1 and FRWL is no. 3 but GF is possibly in my top 10 but I couldn't be sure.

    I just don't look at it as the Holy Grail, I completely understand its status in Bond history and it still has one of the best PTS of the series and a fantastic score from Barry.

    Although the PTS for me is the highlight of the film, it's like Terence Young directed it and then let the other fella take over, I really don't rate Guy Hamilton at all.


    Yes I prefer SF over GF quite considerably, I must need my head seeing to.

    While Goldfinger is in my favourite 5 I do feel it's overpraised by fans. I feel like Skyfall is both overpraised and overrated.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 11,425
    I don't think GF is over praised on here. Quite the opposite. All I seem to hear these days is how supposedly awful GF is.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,118
    I would never say GF is awful, just not one of my favourites. I understand its reputation, but given that films like OHMSS, the Connery-Young entries or the Dalton double bill exist, can't really see why it's so widely considered as the best (same goes for CR, really).
  • Posts: 7,507
    Only one Moore in my top ten unfortunately. I love the guy and I enjoy many of his films, but competition is fierce... Spy, LALD and OP all follow closely.

    1. FRWL
    2. CR
    3. OHMSS
    4. LTK
    5. DN
    6. SF
    7. TB
    8. TLD
    9. GF
    10. FYEO
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Yes, I forgot about LTK, which is another guilty pleasure: it's in my second tier, as well.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think GF is over praised on here. Quite the opposite. All I seem to hear these days is how supposedly awful GF is.

    I don't find it overpraised nor anyone saying it's awful. People who love it should express that and defend it as such.

    It has just never worked for me in the way it does for others and I've tried and tried. There are undeniably great elements but it just doesn't mesh into overall greatness. For every brilliant laser table scene there are some very slow patches and several WTF moments to throw off the balance.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    OHMSS is no 1 and FRWL is no. 3 but GF is possibly in my top 10 but I couldn't be sure.

    I just don't look at it as the Holy Grail, I completely understand its status in Bond history and it still has one of the best PTS of the series and a fantastic score from Barry.

    Although the PTS for me is the highlight of the film, it's like Terence Young directed it and then let the other fella take over, I really don't rate Guy Hamilton at all.


    Yes I prefer SF over GF quite considerably, I must need my head seeing to.

    While Goldfinger is in my favourite 5 I do feel it's overpraised by fans. I feel like Skyfall is both overpraised and overrated.

    They are both similar in that way, I certainly prefer SF myself but I imagine some Bond fans would find that sacrilege, a varied bunch we are.

    I find GF is definitely overpraised and overrated as well, it seems it gets called the default best Bond film by critics.

    I understand its impact but I don't share that opinion.

    I think as fans we hold the films to a different standard to people outside and some the films that get short shrift outside of that are much admired here.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think GF is over praised on here. Quite the opposite. All I seem to hear these days is how supposedly awful GF is.

    Yes, it’s been fairly constant for a couple of years now.

    If you're on these boards long enough, you'll read a lot of a lot. If that makes sense.

    Even on this thread: a lot of posting about SF being awful or overrated...a lot at the other end of the spectrum.

    Trying to have any sane argument about whether or not any of the 24 films is "the best" is likely going to lead to 90-99% of the posters saying, "NO."

    Picking the "best" Bond film is such an individual thing. Kind of like saying, who is the most beautiful woman on earth? I mean, I'd say it's Charlize Theron, but I wouldn't argue all that much with someone who says Ana. LOL
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    If we were to do a consensus vote, the top five rated films usually seems to be at least DN, FRWL, GF, CR, and SF.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2020 Posts: 6,296
    If we were to do a consensus vote, the top five rated films usually seems to be at least DN, FRWL, GF, CR, and SF.

    No OHMSS? Like @GoldenGun said, it did the personal stakes first (and arguably best), long before LTK, CR, and SF.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    If we were to do a consensus vote, the top five rated films usually seems to be at least DN, FRWL, GF, CR, and SF.

    https://fansided.com/2017/08/27/the-best-james-bond-movie/
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    echo wrote: »
    If we were to do a consensus vote, the top five rated films usually seems to be at least DN, FRWL, GF, CR, and SF.

    No OHMSS? Like @GoldenGun said, it did the personal stakes first (and arguably best), long before LTK, CR, and SF.

    Among fans, absolutely, but outside of that it’s not anywhere close to the five that’s consistently ranked as audience favorites.
    TripAces wrote: »
    If we were to do a consensus vote, the top five rated films usually seems to be at least DN, FRWL, GF, CR, and SF.

    https://fansided.com/2017/08/27/the-best-james-bond-movie/

    This is very helpful.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited April 2020 Posts: 814
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I encounter similar views about Dalton from people who've never seen his films. Often people have been told Dalton was awful. Then when I recommend they actually watch TLD they love him.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Because Lazenby and Dalton never broke big with large audiences like the other actors as Bond, they’ll only be appreciated at a cult level. Had Connery or Moore been in OHMSS, the film would probably rank much higher with audiences rather than be written off as the black sheep of the the franchise.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Yes, I know plenty of people who have seen a Bond film from every actor but Dalton and Lazenby.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited April 2020 Posts: 2,541
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


    I agree with the rest of the post except the bolded part, Dalton is my favorite bond but he may not be able to play a lover which Lazenby and Craig did.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 16,382
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    I love it, but it does have big problems. Lazenby is toppermost of course, plus it does sag in the middle a bit and the undercranked fight scenes are a bit ridiculous to some people. What I would call a very big problem is the love story: it's supposed to be all about them falling in love but they couldn't be bothered to show it and just do it in a montage. So one minute Tracy doesn't want to see Bond, slip a montage in, and she's desperate to marry him. It's not very well-handled.

    Octopussy wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


    He's not just doing what Dalton did though. He's playing it similarly seriously, but he's adding in movie star presence and a real feel for Bond's huge self-confidence and ego, which Dalton missed. It's not the same performance, it's much more appealing to an audience and much more varied. He's also seen as being sexier by women I think, which doesn't harm anything.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    As for Lazenby, he pretty shot himself in the foot and rightfully never earned the love of audiences, so that's all on him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    Yeah massively agree and very well-put. I've always thought Dalton is much better in other non-Bond films and shows qualities he actually needed to display but didn't as Bond.
    Removing Bond's machismo and swagger is a really bad idea. Even Lazenby knew to keep those (although his ending up pitching slightly into 'smug', but it's still better than nothing).
  • Posts: 11,425
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


    I agree with the rest of the post except the bolded part, Dalton is my favorite bond but he may not be able to play a lover which Lazenby and Craig did.

    It might not be as good as Tracy and Vesper but Dalton's on screen chemistry with Kara is pretty good I'd say.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    mtm wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    Yeah massively agree and very well-put. I've always thought Dalton is much better in other non-Bond films and shows qualities he actually needed to display but didn't as Bond.
    Removing Bond's machismo and swagger is a really bad idea. Even Lazenby knew to keep those (although his ending up pitching slightly into 'smug', but it's still better than nothing).

    I think Dalton's take was admirable. He was really trying to make it his own in the same way that Moore did from Connery, it's just that take on the character didn't endear audiences. It was still worth a shot.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    mtm wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    I love it, but it does have big problems. Lazenby is toppermost of course, plus it does sag in the middle a bit and the undercranked fight scenes are a bit ridiculous to some people. What I would call a very big problem is the love story: it's supposed to be all about them falling in love but they couldn't be bothered to show it and just do it in a montage. So one minute Tracy doesn't want to see Bond, slip a montage in, and she's desperate to marry him. It's not very well-handled.

    Octopussy wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


    He's not just doing what Dalton did though. He's playing it similarly seriously, but he's adding in movie star presence and a real feel for Bond's huge self-confidence and ego, which Dalton missed. It's not the same performance, it's much more appealing to an audience and much more varied. He's also seen as being sexier by women I think, which doesn't harm anything.
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.
    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    As for Lazenby, he pretty shot himself in the foot and rightfully never earned the love of audiences, so that's all on him.

    I've never seen The Rocketeer but have heard it's a great film. I'll look into that. I agree that Lazenby shot himself in the foot with his attitude at the time.
    I agree with the rest of the post except the bolded part, Dalton is my favorite bond but he may not be able to play a lover which Lazenby and Craig did.

    I disagree as Dalton definitely demonstrated he could play a lover in The Living Daylights with his relationship with Kara, IMO.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 16,382
    mtm wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    Yeah massively agree and very well-put. I've always thought Dalton is much better in other non-Bond films and shows qualities he actually needed to display but didn't as Bond.
    Removing Bond's machismo and swagger is a really bad idea. Even Lazenby knew to keep those (although his ending up pitching slightly into 'smug', but it's still better than nothing).

    I think Dalton's take was admirable. He was really trying to make it his own in the same way that Moore did from Connery, it's just that take on the character didn't endear audiences. It was still worth a shot.

    Maybe, but he should perhaps have looked at what those two successful portrayals had in common and what audiences expect from Bond. Craig has shown that it is possible to do what Dalton had in mind and keep that swagger. CraigBond's massive self-confidence has provided most of the most enjoyable moments of his tenancy I'd say. Frustrating because, as you say, he was capable of that.
Sign In or Register to comment.