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
Here is the irony. The first time I saw it, I was so shocked how bad it was that I thought perhaps I was not feeling well. So I went again to try and force myself to like it. And I went the third time because though it was not great, it had some cool moments.
But I never though they would replace Brosnan on the basis of the box office. I thought we had another three films with him in the role.
I don't know why but he feels a bit dry. He gives a pretty good performance but just lacks that extra something. Swagger perhaps?? Craig does do serious Bond better.
It was Dalton's performance that saved the film. Without his strong Bond, the film would have fallen apart. But he did amazing knowing the circumstance.
Davi does steal the film - no question. He may be suited to Dalton's Bond but he gets all the best lines of dialogue and mixes coolness and murderous rage wonderfully. He's the one I'm more scarred of and intrigued by.
With Dalton its very black and white. You can tell when he's angry just by looking at his face. Davi does it with more cynicism and subtlety.
Amen to that. Very well put. I think @Bain123 is trying to find fault at any expense. I have heard some try the same thing with Craig after QOS. They called him miserable in the role and another Dalton LTK performance. Total and utter b*llshit.
Craig and Dalton are from different eras. Comparing them is pointless.
I went through a phase where I hated Moore despite once loving him. I would watch the film just to criticise. And I could easily use certain scenes to justify. But I never saw the forest for the trees as it were.
But in the end, I was wrong. Moore was a fine Bond and I was poisoned by others denigrating him as wooden and weak.
I just can't help but enjoy most of the others more...sorry!!
Davi's character is in a position of power so of course he is more relaxed. Bond has lost his MI6 status and is on his own with little backing against a drug empire.
If you are going to critique, you have to offer something more substantial. Bond is supposed to show in the story that he is right up against it and I do not think a laid back attitude would convince me he can beat Sanchez.
His scenes with Sanchez have great tension knowing what Sanchez would do if he knows what Bond is up to.
What about the scenes where Sanchez is befriending Bond in his home. Here we see Sanchez likes him and wants him in his organisation. He admires Bond's confidence when they first met and how he is better than his own men.
LTK is a film where you have to look at the fine layers of the performances. Bond is a complex character. You want Bond to be like he was in other stories but out of context to this one. That would look worse if they tried that and there would be no point in setting up Felix's misfortune as Bond's revenge motivation.
It's funny, when I first saw LTK I didn't like it at all and felt it was totally unBondian. One scene really bugged me - at Hemingway's house where he kicks M's guards.
I don't really mind that scene. The "fairwell to arms" line is a nice touch.
I probably should be sorry for being so defensive.
Fair enough. But remember that Craig knew how Dalton's take was received. Had there been no Dalton and no serious Bond before, I think EON would have possibly overcooked the seriousness with Craig. EON would have adjusted Dalton for his third and Dalton even said the next one needs more humour and better writing.
Craig benefitted from knowing what is acceptable and what will not be accepted in general. Had he been the first to do it, then I could assume the opposition would have been stronger to his take. Brosnan's style was popular and in line with what audiences wanted.
But Dalton had guts knowing he was taking huge risk that had not been seen taken with the character in 25 years.
The problem why Bond films go off course is because they play things too easy and go stale. You need to try new things and in Dalton's case I take him as the actor he is.
I don't watch Moore thinking about Connery. If I did I would be disappointed.
YOLT is a different story. And he is still employed by the British Government.
Dalton is as intriguing as Bond. Davi's performance is contextual and gives a good contrast to the darker Bond. They are shown as both being strong men.
The problem is that you prefer cinematic Bond style. But I like Fleming's flawed hero just as much. He is a miserable bastard in the books and not a likeable character. That is the Fleming Bond and the source of the character.
YOLT is a different story than say LALD or Casino Royale.
As for laid back, Dalton's Bond is like that in the scenes at Felix's wedding. He is enjoying himself before the storm ahead. And they clearly show that.
Maybe thats true :( It's why I enjoy the likes of Moore and Brosnan too. I am more used to it I suppose - despite having read most of the books at least once.
Craig probably blends the two together a bit more successfully than Dalts did in all honesty (though he was given more of a chance to in fairness but even in CR he combines humour and toughness more convincingly). Once you see SF you'll see what I mean.
As I've said before I actually used to favour Dalts over Craig but when I re-watched CR last year I re-evaluated.
The thing is with Bond is that you have to take them in the context of their era. How do you compare Dr No to LALD. The movies are so different and need to be evaluated on there merits not differences.
Craig's Bond took a long time and is a by product of the Brosnan era. It is so obvious that 5 years prior to CR, EON had no intention of taking it as far with the character. And had the backlash to DAD not been so severe, they would have continued the Brosnan era happily. They were forced to change or die.
But I judge it on it's own strengths. In fact the fans who hate Craig, do so by comparing the earlier film styles. I avoid that. Otherwise I would not see his films and stick to my favourites.
Bond survived by change not by same old same old. Could you imagine if Batman tried to emulate the Adam West version which had a huge audience?
That is a very good point. I sound like I'm anti Dalton don't I. I don't mean to be.
Ultimately its a great thing Craig came on board. I've grown to like him more as I've got older and, after seeing SF again yesterday, he's firmly in my top 3 Bond actors.
Thanks @Bain123 There are times when I am not in the mood for a Craig film and would prefer to watch Roger Moore or Sean Connery. Craig's first two are not easy viewing and require engagement of the mind too. They are not fun filled capers and I cannot pretend they are the same as the earlier films.
But what I love about the series is the different flavours the actors bring.
But sometimes a particular film is perfect depending on what we are experiencing in life at the time. And that will affect the taste in actors. In my case anyway.
You see I would agree with you in relation to QoS. That isn't a fun film but I think Royale does get the balance right. I've seen it many times over the last 6 years and, while it is more serious in tone, there are some funny moments and scenes that allow the audience to relax. Last time I watched it I was suprised at how funny Craig is.
Actually I was talking to a friends dad about CR and he described Craig as "quite blokey in that film".
If there's one drawback to Craig it might be that. He's a bit too "working class". The friend who I saw SF with yesterday had previously described Craig as too much like Harry Palmer.
CR is not a traditional Bond film as it is an origin story before he becomes Bond. The film is a serious thriller and does not work the same way as say DAF or Goldfinger.
It has funny moments but it is very dark in tone and attitude. There is little comic relief.
The villains are more real world and the consequences of crossing them are shown far more strongly than any Bond film before.
The more comic elements are when Bond checks into the hotel and is relaxed like when he parks the car being mistaken for a car valet.
If I was an exclusive Moore only Bond fan, then Craig or CR is not the film I would go back to.
Yes, but the tension is massive and those scenes humour are very quickly over.
The "You want to do what? to me" is to me ok but not outstanding. It's more of dialogue rather than humour.
The middle one about the last hand is better.
In all honesty, CR is the last film I would use as an example of Bond humour. I would have to say that Goldeneye is far better in the scenes like when he meets Valentin in his club. When Brosnan delivers "Very talented girl!", to me it outweighs all the jokes in CR.
Yes, but CR is radically different and would not rival what an early Moore film has in terms of laughing out for ages. The Moore era did it best in terms of Bond's quips followed by the Connery era. But it was in a time when that style of humour was used a lot. Carry On films had brilliant one liners too.
That's what happens when you take any film out of context and start the this is better than that. Craig is not a natural comic and if they try to make him too funny it will be forced. It has to be natural and fitted to the actor's personality.
Craig is actually in real life is way more serious than Dalton. Dalton in real life is a joker and his hot fuzz outtakes shocked me. He loves the word "Motherf***er!". Many who meet Dalton say he is so different to his stereotype of being unhappy.
Connery is a natural comedian too. He is brilliant at delivering with a straight face. The Man Who Would Be King is so funny without making it obvious.
I would be lying if I said Craig handles the one liners better than Connery. They are Connery's personality and how could Craig be the same or better?
But what Craig adds is modern acting and plenty of real emotion. And that is a big thing! Craig is his own Bond and that is a good thing. But for future entries I hope they do not make him into something he is not.
The Bond humour is tricky as it is in essence always based on the Connery persona. Connery with Terence Young worked hard at that aspect and it is trademark of his Bond.
Humour is so subjective and dependent on the culture you grow up in. I do think each actor needs to bring his own style of humour to the part rather than depend on a popular previous actor.
I may be in the minority here, but I loved Dalton's sarcasm when he delivers the line "Salt Corrosion". It is such a fast reflex to her question and he clearly is showing how intelligent Bond thinks she is. And the glance he gives her says it all. That delivery shows Bond's playfulness even in a difficult situation.
I also love his "Why didn't you learn the violin?". It was perfect for the situation and I laughed loud as did the cinema. He did it his way rather than impersonate Moore or Connery's gigs.
Being a Bond actor is tricky. For everyone you please, you piss off someone else. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.