MovieChat Forums > Licence to Kill (1989) Discussion > am I the only one who doesn't particular...

am I the only one who doesn't particularly like Dalton in this day and age?

posted 7 years ago by [deleted]
8 replies | jump to latest

In recent years, Dalton has earned a huge new appreciation from fans. With many claiming him to be the predecessor to Craig, and that he offered the most faithful interpretation of the Bond in the novels. But for me, his Bond just comes off rather one-note.

With his constant intense stares and uptight attitude, his Bond doesn't so much feel more complex to me, but rather just a really pissed off guy with a chip on his shoulder. In his films, we never got to see any aspects of Bond beyond his capacity for rage. He never displayed any of the wit, sophistication, suaveness, arrogance, or sexual charisma that are all essential parts of 007 as a character. All we saw was him getting constantly pissed.

That's not to say the other Bond's were particularly complex. But the difference is, those guys never tried to convince you that they were. Craig felt the most real, but that was because his Bond was the most well-rounded emotionally. With him, we saw a Bond that could be angry, uptight, sad, lonely, defeated, but also suave, charismatic, witty, arrogant, and a total ladykiller. In short, his Bond had depth. Dalton's Bond on the other hand, didn't.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

The REAL Bond is Sean Connery. Wonderful Bonds include Timothy Dalton, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan and George Lazenby. Please note that Roger Moore is not among these.

But your points about Craig are compelling. Sean Connery created this series with his sex appeal, charisma and humor (far and away the most difficult of the performing arts), and I think that Craig has come close to,
but not equalled, him.

Look, aside from anyone who was in Woody Allen's travesty of Casino Royale, I have no problems with
anyone, other than the effiite Roger Moore, who
played James Bond.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

When I say Craig was the most real, I didn't mean as in he was the best (though, I do think he is the best) or my favorite (that goes to Connery). What I meant was that his Bond felt the most like a real person. He was the only one to display real emotional range, whereas Dalton just turned Bond into a really uptight guy. Lazenby displayed some humanity in his portrayal too (shame he was such a crap actor, though), as did Brosnan in The World is Not Enough, but Craig was the one that really cemented it as part of 007's character.

I disagree with you on Moore. Sure, he was anything but Ian Fleming's original character, but the man was an undeniably charismatic lead. While he lacked toughness and believability as an ass kicker, he made up for it with his sheer debonair suaveness and deadpan humor. He was a lot of fun, which is more than what I could say about bipolar Dalton and wooden Lazenby.

[–] ChuckFindlay (392) 7 years ago

I liked his bond, but for audiences it was too jarring from the Moore era to be accepted. I was around 11 when this movie came out and I couldn’t go and see it at the cinema because it was a 15. That really didn’t help it at all at the box office.

The writing was never there for dalton either. In his first outing the script was written for Moore, and then brosnan before he finally got the part. And with this film, it just wasn’t there. It was more “American” than it should have been. It just never came together for dalton like it did for brosnan with goldeneye, or Craig with Casio royale.

I firmly believe that if dalton had gotten better scripts he would have been a great bond.

[–] FootOfDavros (8241) 2 years ago

He's performances are just too stilted.

As you pointed out, he just completely lacks the characteristics required of screen Bond. Of course nowadays people conflate that with a brooding intensity or something and like to give him kudos but it's important to remember at the time his efforts performed incredibly poorly for Bond films.

I think, at best, the first one performed marginally better than Moore's last but still pretty shocking for a new Bond. Even today if you adjust for inflation I believe his films are pretty much at the bottom of the pile.

So yes, his legacy has received somewhat of a boost from fans of the pseudo Bond Craig, but genuine Bond fans of that time still have no love for Dalton's efforts.

[–] KutWrite (1317) a year ago

Right. This film put forth poor performances from ALL the actors... except Benicio delToro. His role reminded me of the debut performance of Pierce Brosnan in "The Long Good Friday." He dripped that character's DNA all over the screen (meant in a good way).

[–] KutWrite (1317) a year ago

I think he,and all others in this film, acted wooden. The exception was Benicio del Toro, who just oozed the evil character's DNA.

[–] redban (6318) 10 months ago

Something about his appearance and acting just makes this movie seem made-for-TV

[–] overseas7 (4330) 10 months ago

For me he was a good Bond.