›

Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?

1…89111314…20

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Mrcoggins wrote: »
    No not the flowers old chap read the text and you will find you have used her ! In your post
    I also doubt that TD ever comes too soon ! ;)

    Oh, now I see. I missed that typo! I've amended said post accordingly. :\">
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    avtak was a bit ropey and TLD was pretty well received I seem to remember.

    But was Dalton that well received as Bond? And while TLD easy a success, were people enthusiastic about it?
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    avtak was a bit ropey and TLD was pretty well received I seem to remember.

    But was Dalton that well received as Bond? And while TLD easy a success, were people enthusiastic about it?

    Not sure. TLD and LTK both did perfectly well outside of the US. No reason why a third movie shouldn't have done well too. Not sure at what point Roger was deemed to be a success in his own right. My understanding is that a lot of Connery fans never really accepted Moore but that didn't stop Moore becoming a great Bond with his own fan base.

    It's all speculation but is there any reason to believe that had Dalton done more films that he wouldn't have cemented his status?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The issue was the US imo. Keep in mind it was the 80's and the US was hugely important to cinema box office (much less so these days).

    Even in the 90's EON catered to US tastes with the likes of Richards, Hatcher and Berry. Less so today, thankfully.

    I recall reaction to Dalton being tepid & unenthusiastic. Again, this was a time when the likes of Gibson/Schwarzenegger/Willis were in vogue. All 3 had and still have oodles of on-screen charisma. Dalton really didn't, although he brought a lot of other attributes to his portrayal that were, for the most part, lost on the American audiences.

    Moore as Bond in the late 70's was the top dog box office wise for the non-sci fi genre. I suggest that Schwarzenegger/Willis in particular took a lot from Roger's wisecracking Bond portrayal when creating their movie persona's, but just r-rated it for the 80's audiences.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Yes, Roger's take on Bond is so influential. It's a definitive performance in so many ways.

    I guess he draws on a lot of other actors as well though - David Niven, Cary Grant etc. The nonchalant, wise-cracking, dry sense of humour of those British Hollywood legends.

    Rog was perhaps less upper-class (seemingly) than Niven and Grant, which I think helped give him more of a universal appeal. Niven could come across a little aloof, and Grant was perhaps just too smooth - think Rog's Bond performance is almost pitch perfect.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes, Roger's take on Bond is so influential. It's a definitive performance in so many ways.

    I guess he draws on a lot of other actors as well though - David Niven, Cary Grant etc. The nonchalant, wise-cracking, dry sense of humour of those British Hollywood legends.

    His style does remind me of Cary Grant at times. Overall very smooth even when faced with death

    *Falls off cablecar*

    "Hang on James"
    "The thought had occurred to me"

    That probably worked against him on more than a few occasions though.

    BUT The thing is with Moore is that he's quite easy to watch. He's a likeable screen presence and has a charisma that people maybe still wanted when Dalton came in. I think Moore made his spy work look easy, whereas Dalton projected a more intense Bond.

    Personally I do think Moore is the more engaging of the two actors in general. Same with Craig.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I love Cary Grant, but don't think he would have made a great Bond - it needed the hard edge of Connery to kick the series off and establish a certain standard.

    However, I think Rog's Cary Grant-esque style made a lot of sense as a follow up to Connery. Why ape Connery? So Rog did his own thing and redefined the role.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    I love Cary Grant, but don't think he would have made a great Bond - it needed the hard edge of Connery to kick the series off and establish a certain standard.

    However, I think Rog's Cary Grant-esque style made a lot of sense as a follow up to Connery. Why ape Connery? So Rog did his own thing and redefined the role.

    I remember the last time I saw North By Northwest and thought James Mason would have made a lot more sense as Bond rather than Cary Grant (I know Fleming was apparently fond of him).

    You need to have a bit of an air of menace about you to be Bond. I'm not sure Grant (or Moore actually) have that. They're almost too likeable. Dalton kind of has it but he seems to pretend a lot of the time.

    In regard to the thread's question incidently, I think Craig just captures that arrogant yet brutal quality slightly better than Dalton did. I find him a bit more convincing with the lighter stuff and just a genuinely more compelling presence.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I love Cary Grant, but don't think he would have made a great Bond - it needed the hard edge of Connery to kick the series off and establish a certain standard.

    However, I think Rog's Cary Grant-esque style made a lot of sense as a follow up to Connery. Why ape Connery? So Rog did his own thing and redefined the role.

    I remember the last time I saw North By Northwest and thought James Mason would have made a lot more sense as Bond rather than Cary Grant (I know Fleming was apparently fond of him).

    You need to have a bit of an air of menace about you to be Bond. I'm not sure Grant (or Moore actually) have that. They're almost too likeable. Dalton kind of has it but he seems to pretend a lot of the time.

    In regard to the thread's question incidently, I think Craig just captures that arrogant yet brutal quality slightly better than Dalton did. I find him a bit more convincing with the lighter stuff and just a genuinely more compelling presence.

    Very true about Grant not being menacing, although interestingly, Fleming wanted him first.

    Keep in mind also that Star Wars had become box office gold during Moore's 70's run. The heroes of the day were a bunch of kids (Luke) running around and Superman flying around. No menace there at all. Even Hans Solo was wisecracking in that day. So in the late 70's I think big box office meant less menace (ironically since there were so many dark movies during that time).

    The menace thing is true and evident when you look back at it now, but I'm not sure it could have worked in Moore's 70's heyday given what audiences were gravitating to then.

    I think "I'll be back" and "Yippee kayeee" owe a lot to Roger Moore.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I love Cary Grant, but don't think he would have made a great Bond - it needed the hard edge of Connery to kick the series off and establish a certain standard.

    However, I think Rog's Cary Grant-esque style made a lot of sense as a follow up to Connery. Why ape Connery? So Rog did his own thing and redefined the role.

    I remember the last time I saw North By Northwest and thought James Mason would have made a lot more sense as Bond rather than Cary Grant (I know Fleming was apparently fond of him).

    You need to have a bit of an air of menace about you to be Bond. I'm not sure Grant (or Moore actually) have that. They're almost too likeable. Dalton kind of has it but he seems to pretend a lot of the time.

    In regard to the thread's question incidently, I think Craig just captures that arrogant yet brutal quality slightly better than Dalton did. I find him a bit more convincing with the lighter stuff and just a genuinely more compelling presence.

    I always thought James Mason would have made sense as Blofeld, but that is another topic.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited February 2015 Posts: 15,106
    Anybody thought that John Glen played a certain role in the public perception of Dalton and his Bond movies? Dalton and him did not get along well, for instance, which did not bring a good atmosphere on set.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Why do you think people were underwhelmed by Dalton @Birdleson? Was Moore's lighter approach still in people's mind's or was it just that Dalton simply didn't give the audience what they wanted/expected?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Personally speaking, while I do appreciate Dalton I'd much rather rewatch the early Sean Connery films and the better Roger Moore films (TSWLM, FYEO and OP). Heck even Moonraker has more of a sense of fun (even though its taken to ridiculous levels) than LTK and is much better produced.

    I like LTK but it does feel a bit off in some regards. You sort of find yourself thinking at times "oh yeah...this is a Bond film".

    Did you like LTK when you left the cinema @Birdleson? I think it's decent but it's not a particularly "fun" film. It's got "roughness" but not a lot of class.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    LTK was EON's first kick at the can with this kind of approach, and they made some mistakes, particularly on the glamour front.

    Now that I know what the film is all about I can sit back and enjoy the story & in particular Dalton's & Davi's intensity. When I first saw the movie, I couldn't really enjoy what it had to offer because I couldn't get over the the lack of flair/glamour (cinematography/locations etc.) and this grated.

    EON revisited this sort of thing recently with QoS, and I noticed they went to some lengths to ensure it looked like a true Bond film up on screen, despite the similarly dark state of mind of the hero.

    Bond films must be beautiful to look at and glamorous. I think the film audiences see this as a prerequisite. EON knows that now.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Because after 12 years of the jimmy bond comedy hour, people had forgotten who James Bond really was. He was a killer who fought hard and bled.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Because after 12 years of the jimmy bond comedy hour, people had forgotten who James Bond really was. He was a killer who fought hard and bled.

    And people had already watched Miami Vice for several seasons and found Don Johnson a far more acceptable choice in a war on drugs movie than they were interested in 007 doing the same. ;)

    Oh, and they just didn't like Dalton in the US. The man is essentially a stage performer and tv "star"
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    SaintMark wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Because after 12 years of the jimmy bond comedy hour, people had forgotten who James Bond really was. He was a killer who fought hard and bled.

    And people had already watched Miami Vice for several seasons and found Don Johnson a far more acceptable choice in a war on drugs movie than they were interested in 007 doing the same. ;)

    Oh, and they just didn't like Dalton in the US. The man is essentially a stage performer and tv "star"

    LTK did lack glamour and exotism.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Yes, that was a part of it. But it was also Dalton himself. He seemed uncomfortable in the role. Some MI6 Community fans have argued that he was playing Bond as edgy, wired on nicotine and caffeine, as he was in the novels, which made him seem uneasy and nervous, and that may be true. Regardless, audiences wanted a Bond who seemed in control. I don't remember anyone (but this was pre-internet, mind you) who enjoyed Dalton's portrayal at the time, except for myself and a few other long time fans. And even I didn't care for the films themselves, at the time (except for the first hour or ). They seemed pedestrian.

    TLD did a decent job at the box office, but that was mainly fueled by the Bond brand. People weren't coming out of the theatre excited and laughing as had been the case with the Connery and Moore films. As your question implies, @BAIN123 , people excepted their Bond films to be fun. A lesson that EON learned and had great success with six years after, regardless of anyone on here's feeling's toward the Brosnan era. And I don't think that it's any surprise that SF trounced QOS in terms of box office and resonance with the audience. Fun.

    Agree with a lot of this.

    I shake my head in wonder and bemusement when I read that 'Craig owes everything to Dalton', as if the very idea of a moody, edgy Bond was inconceivable without Dalton's ground-breaking performance.
    The problem is Dalton's performance wasn't ground-breaking at all. It was muddled and inconsistent for a start. Craig's Bond slips effortlessly from (example) flirting with Vesper on the train to teasing Le Chiffre, to moody intensity at the table. A controlled performance, his Bond is a rounded person.
    Tim flirts with Moneypenny and I hide my head in embarrassment. His moody intensity when facing up to Sanchez in his office is a lesson in controlled intense, film acting...from Robert Davi that is.

    I will tell you when Dalton really succeeds, where he hits the ball clean out of the park. In the PTS for TLD his reckless pursuit of the villain's vehicle is almost Indiana Jones-like in it's gung ho daftness. No one before him, including Connery could've done all of that and made it look half as realistic.

    And at the other end of his Bondship, he does it again with the LTK tanker chase. A great sequence completely rubber stamped by Dalton.

    Yet, all the Dalton lovers go on about his Flemingesque performance and his edgy intensity, when all along his most convincing moments were the big action scenes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    There is an element of Craig's Bond that is geared to the movie audiences - an appreciation for the history of the Bond character on film.

    I don't see that in Dalton's performances - in terms of his appreciation for that movie history, I get the feeling he is the one saying "Do I look like I give a damn!"

    Frankly, I like that about his performances, just as I like Craig's for different reasons. I did not appreciate it at the time (in fact, I hated Dalton in the 80's) but I do now.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I suppose Dalton had less Bond history to go with. He was always very...polite about Roger Moore, and clearly was determined to steer as far away from Moore's take on Bond as is possible. However, when it came to his smirking in any scene he had with a woman was more reminiscent of Moore than Connery (who he clearly admired).

    Rog had been Bond for so long that his take on the character had left an indelible stamp, even on Dalton.

    Craig seems to me to be more comfortable with Bond's movie history, and less influenced by any actor, including Connery (the one man who casts the longest shadow)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    That is true that Roger Moore's Bond cast a long shadow, particularly in the 80's, but I think EON is also partly at fault here. They had filmed deleted scenes with Dalton on a carpet.....something I'm sure they did not even think about during Craig's run.

    So Dalton surely had his hands tied in some respect because EON/Glen were probably unsure. These movies were being made much more regularly too back then, so the past was still fresh and recent.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I agree with that. Dalton's hands were tightly tied so the fact he wriggled free at all was possibly a minor miracle.

    Between the 40th and 50th anniversary only 2 films have been made which suggests a greater desire by BB to 'get it right'. Cubby was churning out a production line and the 25th anniversary film was part of that line. The fact TLD was such an enjoyable romp is testament to Eon's work ethic rather than a desire to produce something of any great value.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    What I liked best about Dalton was his Flemingesque performance and his edgy intensity.


    :P
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    chrisisall wrote: »
    What I liked best about Dalton was his Flemingesque performance and his edgy intensity.


    :P

    You see @chrisisall that's why I'm here - to help pull you back from the brink of Dalton worship. Learn to trust me. ;-)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    What I liked best about Dalton was his Flemingesque performance and his edgy intensity.

    And I love the fact they constructed such a Fleming-esque narrative for Bond that was worthy of Dalton's abilities; LTK. In fact I'd argue they've not quite topped the writing/portrayal of Bond since then, save CR, which had the benefit of being an origin. They've made better looking films, slicker paced films, shot better action sequences, had much better scores etc, but in terms of Bond's character shifting from A-B it's bloody brilliant.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    To ME, there are 4 ultimate Bond portrayals: DN, FRWL, TLD & LTK. There are many other great ones, but these define Bond for me.
  • jobojobo
    edited February 2015 Posts: 7,507
    chrisisall wrote: »
    To ME, there are 4 ultimate Bond portrayals: DN, FRWL, TLD & LTK. There are many other great ones, but these define Bond for me.

    I can agree with that, although I'd add Casino Royale into the mix.

  • GetafixGetafix
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I didn't like it because it felt cheap and thrown together. I remember that, for the first time since 1971, I went to see that Bond film with my mother (we both happen to be living in Souther Connecticut a that time). I turned to her a the end and she said that she liked it, I commented that I didn't. It wasn't the darkness that bothered me (I was a fan of the books), it was the lack of grandeur. As I had stated earlier, most of those faces I primarily knew from television. It felt like EON couldn't appeal to or afford top talent. Also, I found the character of Pam Bouvier to be out of place and irritating. Every time she was on camera I tuned out (though I have grown to like that film, she is still the aspect that I cannot abide). The other chick, Lupe, was very attractive, but every time she opened her mouth I cringed. Bad actress.

    In your previous post you said you didn't remember anyone liking the Dalton films at the time, but apparently your mum did! ;)

    Oh, and the LA Times film reviewer in 1989:

    MOVIE REVIEWS : Revenge . . . and Romance : 'Licence': A Darker Version of Bond

    July 14, 1989|MICHAEL WILMINGTON


    Time marches, age withers and everything falls into decay . . . except James Bond, still spruce and deadly after all these years.

    The series has been with us since 1962 and, like many another old timer, tends to repeat itself. Yet, every once in a while, it pulls in its stomach, pops the gun from its cummerbund, arches its eyebrow and gets off another bull's-eye. The newest, "Licence to Kill" (citywide), is probably one of the five or six best of Bond.

    At first, it's hard to suggest why. "Licence" (the title is deliberately anglicized) milks the formula as before: a mix of sex, violence and exotic scenery, with Bond on a one-man raid against an archetype of evil, while seducing women and taking in sights. Here, the locales include the sea-spray expanses of Key West and the garish palaces of Mexico City disguised as a fictitious "Isthmus City."

    Yet the overall tone has gotten more burnished, somber. The new movie sends the new Bond, Timothy Dalton, on a desperate one-man vendetta against an apparently omnipotent South American cocaine czar. And it isolates him, kills or maims three of his best friends, strips him of his rank, his government, his very license to kill. It leaves him with almost nothing but his wits--and dear old chic-weapons expert Q (Desmond Llewelyn), who pops up ex officio with another bag of lethal cameras and exploding toilet accessories.

    It even strips away a little libido. As Timothy Dalton plays the role--with wolfishly sad eyes--this is a more wounded and sensitive Bond than we've ever seen, the sort of Bond the late Laurence Olivier might have imagined. (The look is there, but not the lines.) Bond's appetite for sex seems more distracted, tentative. His women--Carey Lowell as a helicopter pilot and double agent, Talisa Soto as the drug czar's faithless mistress--are more self-sufficient. His armor has sprung a leak.

    Where Sean Connery was wry and self-confident and Roger Moore natty and self-mocking, Dalton projects something strange for a hero identified with impeccable sadism: inner torment. The walk is tense; cigarettes pour out fumes of Angst ; the smile carries a hint of pain.

    Connery always seemed to be enjoying the world hugely--and he carried the audience along with him, made them enjoy it as much as he did. Roger Moore didn't seem to be enjoying the world so much as ignoring it and, instead, enjoying himself--or perhaps some internal reflection. Dalton, by extreme contrast, doesn't project much enjoyment at all. He projects pain. And pain, obsession and revenge are what "Licence to Kill" is all about.

    It's not a film about an urbane adventurer, moving with eerie confidence through a violent, chaotic world. It's a film about a bereaved friend, half-crazed with grief, relying on his instincts and professionalism to carry him through a situation rotten with peril. Like Stallone's Rambo or Eastwood's Dirty Harry, this Bond has been stiffed by the world and abandoned by his government. He is a loner, driven by overwhelming personal hurts--confronted with a cool, sexy foe who, in some curious way, almost recalls the old Bond.

    Previous villains in the series tended to be older, more urbane, wicked paterfamilias figures. Instead, Robert Davi, a heavy in "Die Hard," makes Franz Sanchez--who's modeled on modern drug kings like Carlos Lehder of Colombia's Medellin cartel--a sexy adventurer who metes out rough justice with style and merciless sarcasm. And he has a code: loyalty matters to him more than money. Against this new-style villain, Bond, the dark angel, twists what seems to be Sanchez's only good quality--his insistence on loyalty--against him, trying to strip away his friends one by one and convince him of their treachery.

    It seems to isolate Bond as well as Sanchez. Yet it leaves him with everything that counts: the gimmicks, the archetypes, the formulas, the old jokes of a full 27-year and 16-film tour of duty. Like all Bond movies it has its set-pieces, chief among them a roaring, rousing Mad Max-style climactic, exploding chase involving three Kenworth trucks, jeeps and a small plane set on a desolately beautiful Mexican mountain road. It's planned and staged with the exquisite carnage of a silent comedy car chase, with gags topping gags, and surprises leaping over each other--just as one flaming truck leaps over the plane.

    Produced and co-written by old hands Albert Broccoli and Richard Maibaum (whose tour dates back to 1962's "Dr. No"), directed and co-written by new veterans John Glen and Michael G. Wilson, the movie whips up a combustible brew of old and new. Is it just updating the new cliches: the incessant car crashes, gruesome sadism, heavy hardware, feistier heroines? (Just as there used to be obligatory sexpots-in-distress, Carey Lowell almost seems an obligatory lone wolf.) Perhaps--but all those movies stole from the Bond films, too, often draining out the crucial elements that make them fun: self-kidding humor and exotic locales.

    "Licence to Kill" (MPAA-rated PG-13, despite extreme violence and suggestions of sex) has the usual bursts of illogic, the gratuitous sex or violence. But gratuitous sex or violence have always been fixtures of Bond's world. Often the formulas grate on you. Here, they ignite. This is a guilt-edged Bond; there's a core of darkness and pain in the glittery world exploding around it.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,425
    What you mean like that little known critic, Roger Ebert, on July 14 1989. :
    The James Bond movies have by now taken on the discipline of a sonnet or a kabuki drama: Every film follows the same story outline so rigidly that we can predict almost to the minute such obligatory developments as (1) the introduction of the villain's specialized hit man; (2) the long shot that establishes the villain's incredibly luxurious secret hideout; (3) the villain's fatal invitation to Bond to spend the night; (4) the moment when the villain's mistress falls for Bond; (5) the series of explosions destroying the secret fortress, and (6) the final spectacular stunt sequence.

    Connoisseurs evaluate the elements in a Bond picture as if they were movements in a symphony, or courses in a meal. There are few surprises, and the changes are evolutionary, so that the latest Bond picture is recognizable as a successor to the first, "Dr. No," in 1962. Within this framework of tradition, "Licence to Kill" nevertheless manages to spring some interesting surprises. One is that the Bond character, as played now for the second time by Timothy Dalton, has become less of a British icon and more of an international action hero. The second is that the tempo has been picked up, possibly in response to the escalating pace of the Rambo and Indiana Jones movies. The third is that the villain has fairly modest aims, for a change; he doesn't want to rule the world, he only wants to be a cocaine billionaire.

    I've grown uneasy lately about the fashion of portraying drug smugglers in glamorous lifestyles; they're viewed with some of the same glamor as gangsters were, in films of the 1930s. Sure, they die in the end, but they have a lot of fun in the meantime. In "Licence to Kill," however, the use of a drug kingpin named Sanchez (Robert Davi) and his henchmen (Anthony Zerbe, Frank McRae) is apparently part of an attempt to update the whole series and make it feel more contemporary.

    There are still, of course, the obligatory scenes. The film begins with a sensationally unbelievable stunt sequence (Bond and friend lasso a plane, then parachute to a wedding ceremony). But then the action switches to the recognizable modern world in and around Key West, Fla., where the British agent finds himself involved in an operation to capture Sanchez and cut his pipeline of cocaine.

    Like all Bond villains, Sanchez has unlimited resources and a beautiful mistress. His operation uses an underwater shark-nabbing company as its cover, and keeps a few sharks on hand so they can dine on federal agents. After Bond's friend, Felix Leiter, is mistreated by the bad guys, 007 begins a savage vendetta against Sanchez, which involves elaborate and violent stunt sequences in the air, on land, and underwater.

    He is aided in his campaign by the beautiful Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell, introduced as "Miss Kennedy, my executive secretary"), and saved more than once by Sanchez' beautiful mistress, Lupe Lamora (Talisa Soto). Both women are as beautiful as the historical Bond standard, but more modern - more competent, intelligent and capable, and not simply sex objects. This is no doubt part of the plan, announced before Dalton's first Bond picture, to de-emphasize the character's promiscuous sex life. Compared to his previous films, 007 is practically chaste this time.

    My favorite moments in all the Bond pictures involve The Fallacy of the Talking Killer, in which the villain has Bond clearly in his power, and then, instead of killing him instantly, makes the mistake of talking just long enough for Bond to make a plan. The fallacy saves Bond's life two or three times in this movie - especially once when all that Davi has to do is slice his neck.

    "Licence to Kill" ends, as all the Bond films do, with an extended chase and stunt sequence. This one involves some truly amazing stunt work, as three giant gasoline trucks speed down a twisting mountain road, while a helicopter and a light aircraft also join in the chase. There were moments when I was straining to spot the trickery, as a big semi-rig spun along tilted to one side, to miss a missile aimed by the bad guys. But the stunts all look convincing, and the effect of the closing sequence is exhilarating.

    On the basis of this second performance as Bond, Dalton can have the role as long as he enjoys it. He makes an effective Bond - lacking Sean Connery's grace and humor, and Roger Moore's suave self-mockery, but with a lean tension and a toughness that is possibly more contemporary. The major difference between Dalton and the earlier Bonds is that he seems to prefer action to sex. But then so do movie audiences, these days. "Licence to Kill" is one of the best of the recent Bonds.


    Admitedly it's not a 5* review, but it's not exactly a bad review either
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Was it @NicNac on this thread or another one who said Dalton was actually best in the action scenes? I hadn't thought this before, but Ebert seems to have made that point 25 plus years ago.
This discussion has been closed.