19 replies to this topic

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

Not my FAVORITE, mind you, but the most perfect; the key word is balance. It had the right balance of action and the over-the-top combined with a compelling spy thriller. Timothy Dalton managed to portray the character with some faithfulness to Ian Fleming's character while still maintaining the charm and one-liners we've come to expect from 007 (I don't understand why people describe Dalton as "too serious" - he has some lines in TLD that absolutely crack me up." Best of all, not an inch of film is wasted; everything contributes to the intricate plot in some way.

When I first saw TLD back in '87, I was quite impressed by Dalton's performance, in spite of my being a huge fan of Roger Moore. I came to dislike Dalton in later years, blaming him for the temporary demise of the series. But now that I've learned that it wasn't all his fault (and that audiences' lack of acceptance of Dalton may have been indicative of their own poor taste), I've grown to have a new appreciation of the guy.

[DLibrasnow]

Much like LALD which was written with a Sean Connery 007 in mind and then tailored with some of Roger Moore's more fun approach to the character. Wilson and Maibaum originally wrote TLD with Roger Moore in mind and it was only after the casting of Dalton that they put more serious elements into the picture. This I believe is the reason that TLD is more balanced than his darker second picture.

[ray t]

well, dalton's (excellent) performance in 'Daylights has nothing to do with the fact that the film itself is NOT a perfect film.

they say - and i dont disagree - that a bond movie is as strong and as memorable as its villian(s). unfortunately, 'Daylights (IMHO) has two main villians that are neither as menacing nor as memorable as MANY of the other bonds.

of the daltons, i'd say sanchez and dario are a more devastating pair

in terms of "perfection", of the 'realistic' bonds, i'd say FRWL is the most perfect bond movie.

[Tarl_Cabot]

"and that audiences' lack of acceptance of Dalton may have been indicative of their own poor taste"

I've always thought that...

It's a great Bond film.The villians are more like real people than eccentric ego-maniacs living in hollowed out volcanos...I didn't mind thier low impact villiany...it's closer to the real world, which was a breath of fresh air for me...

[ray t]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot


It's a great Bond film.The villians are more like real people than eccentric ego-maniacs living in hollowed out volcanos...I didn't mind thier low impact villiany...it's closer to the real world, which was a breath of fresh air for me...

it is a "great" bond film...but not the 'perfect' bond film, "for me, that is...":)

[Jaelle]

Well of course, any thread with this title will get my attention!

No, it's not perfect, but I do agree it's one of the best Bond films. It's one of my top 3. But it's unusual precisely because of the villains, and also because at the end you have to wonder "what exactly did Bond save?" I love that ambiguity---that's not typical of a Bond film. I love the fact that the villains are not one clear-cut madman, but just a couple of greedy, selfish, amoral, corrupt guys who get together out of pure convenience so they can get rich. I love it how Koskov is this very charming, seductive, friendly guy who really likes Bond.

By the way, the last time I watched it, I noticed something I never caught before. At the amusement park, when Bond is at the shooting gallery, apparently he's hitting all the marks. And the guy behind the gallery--in exasperation--says "Please, no more!" Nice little reference there to Bond's marksmanship.

I also love how the film shows Bond in contrast with other agents, or working together with other agents. The start of the film reminds us that Bond is just another agent, there are others like him, and then shows him getting upset that his fellow agents are being killed. Then there's the Saunders-Bond contrast, and the mini-arc of their relationship. And of course the arc of the Kara-Bond relationship. There's also the nice development of Bond creating loyalty to him among the Afghan tribes. There's just so much in the film, I could on and on!

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

"By the way, the last time I watched it, I noticed something I never caught before. At the amusement park, when Bond is at the shooting gallery, apparently he's hitting all the marks. And the guy behind the gallery--in exasperation--says "Please, no more!" Nice little reference there to Bond's marksmanship."

I liked that touch too:).

I know a lot of people dislike the absence of a megalomaniac villain, but to me that just makes it more of a realistic spy thriller, and I like it when the Bond films occasionally try to be realistic.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

It's a great Bond film.The villians are more like real people than eccentric ego-maniacs living in hollowed out volcanos...I didn't mind thier low impact villiany...it's closer to the real world, which was a breath of fresh air for me...

Are you seriously suggesting that Bond is a character that belongs in the real world Tarl??? Bond is a preposterous, fantasy character...even MI6 in its recruitment efforts points that out....

[Tarl_Cabot]

"Are you seriously suggesting that Bond is a character that belongs in the real world Tarl??? Bond is a preposterous, fantasy character...even MI6 in its recruitment efforts points that out.."-Dsnow

In 'From Russia with Love Bond' Bond is human. His adventures and expoits are plausible. I think he's at his most interesting when you can really buy what you are watching as opposed to seeing Bond do a cartoon achieved glaciar caused meagatsunami para-surfing sequence...but that's just me.

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

I think there's room for both fantasy and realistic elements in Bond -- that's why I think TLD is perfectly balanced. It's got some fantasy (the equipped Aston Martin) mixed with some realism (the real-world politics).

If Bond is going to be a SPY -- even a fantasy spy -- it's nice to see him take on real-world threats stemming from real-life politics every once in a while. It's cathartic to see this superhuman guy take on the threats of OUR world.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Yes if the films get too fantastic they become trivial, frivolous and boring. We're at WAR now.A lot of what I read on CNN is more interesting than the silly escapisim Hollywood has been serving up lately...

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Dr.Carl Mortner
I think there's room for both fantasy and realistic elements in Bond -- that's why I think TLD is perfectly balanced. It's got some fantasy (the equipped Aston Martin) mixed with some realism (the real-world politics).  
If Bond is going to be a SPY -- even a fantasy spy -- it's nice to see him take on real-world threats stemming from real-life politics every once in a while. It's cathartic to see this superhuman guy take on the threats of OUR world.

That's how I feel. I like variety in my Bonds. I can enjoy Roger and Sean and Tim and George and Pierce all on different levels. I have my preferences but I truly enjoy all the actors' interpretations and enjoy their films. One of the main reasons the Bond series is so successful for me as a viewer is precisely because it provides a variety of approaches and styles. Otherwise, it couldn't have survived as long as it has.

[booyeah_]

"Stuff the critics of TLD. I only criticize bad movies. The critics didn't know one end of a film from the other. Go ahead, tell CBN what you want. If they ban me I'll thank him for it. Whoever the critics were
I must have scared the living daylights out of them!"

A new quote from TLD.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by booyeah_
"Stuff the critics of TLD. I only criticize bad movies. The critics didn't know one end of a film from the other. Go ahead, tell CBN what you want. If they ban me I'll thank him for it. Whoever the critics were
I must have scared the living daylights out of them!"
A new quote from TLD.

Very good!! Your post is a keeper!

[Turn]

Originally posted by Jaelle


That's how I feel.  I like variety in my Bonds.    I can enjoy Roger and Sean and Tim and George and Pierce all on different levels.  I have my preferences but I truly enjoy all the actors' interpretations and enjoy their films.  One of the main reasons the Bond series is so successful for me as a viewer is precisely because it provides a variety of approaches and styles.  Otherwise, it couldn't have survived as long as it has.

I agree with this totally. And that was a cool comment, Booyeah.

While TLD is currently no. 3 on my favorites list, it doesn't rank near perfect. I think the safe-sex aspect keeps Bond from being the classic character we identify with from the films, although the one-woman thing is closer to Fleming's Bond. TLD is, unfortunately, also the film where the Bond babe quotient goes downhill, although there are a few at poolside in Whitacre's place.

And the villains hurt it as well. One is too goofy to be that threatening and the other is mostly all talk and doesn't even leave his lair.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

it shocks me beyond words that some still think of this film as the perfect bond movie when it was anything but

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

"I think the safe-sex aspect keeps Bond from being the classic character we identify with from the films"

Do you notice, though, the clever way they work around it? It's not spelled out explicitly, but it's pretty obvious that Bond gets it on with the girl at the beginning. "Better make that two hours," says Tantric Tim.
It's pretty clear from the start that it's the same old horny Bond. Remember when Saunders said, "Forget the ladies for once, 007."

The story didn't really call for Bond to have sex with more than one or two girls. Frankly, there are many times in the series when Bond's womanizing slows the story down for no good reason other than to prove what a stud Bond is. Like I said, TLD is perfectly balanced.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Dr.Carl Mortner
"I think the safe-sex aspect keeps Bond from being the classic character we identify with from the films"

Do you notice, though, the clever way they work around it? It's not spelled out explicitly, but it's pretty obvious that Bond gets it on with the girl at the beginning. "Better make that two hours," says Tantric Tim.
It's pretty clear from the start that it's the same old horny Bond. Remember when Saunders said, "Forget the ladies for once, 007."  
The story didn't really call for Bond to have sex with more than one or two girls. Frankly, there are many times in the series when Bond's womanizing slows the story down for no good reason other than to prove what a stud Bond is. Like I said, TLD is perfectly balanced.

That's true, TLD simply *assumes* Bond's womanizing, refers to it here and there, it just doesn't *show* much of it. In Q's lab, for example, when Bond asks him what his whistle is for the key ring, Q says "Oh something most appropriate, a wolf whistle." Then there's Bond patting Moneypenny's behind. Or when Moneypenny teases him about being attracted to one of the KGB female assassins that Q is describing (I forget her specific line, it's something like "she's just right for you, James"), Bond says "Wrong again, Moneypenny, you are."

As to your last point about how sometimes Bond's womanizing hurt the story.....I think one of the worst examples of this is Bond and Mayday in AVTAK. Very cringeworthy.

[Turn]

Originally posted by Jaelle


That's true, TLD simply *assumes* Bond's womanizing, refers to it here and there, it just doesn't *show* much of it.  In Q's lab, for example, when Bond asks him what his whistle is for the key ring, Q says "Oh something most appropriate, a wolf whistle."  Then there's Bond patting Moneypenny's behind.  Or when Moneypenny teases him about being attracted to one of the KGB female assassins that Q is describing (I forget her specific line, it's something like "she's just right for you, James"), Bond says "Wrong again, Moneypenny, you are."  

As to your last point about how sometimes Bond's womanizing hurt the story.....I think one of the worst examples of this is Bond and Mayday in AVTAK.  Very cringeworthy.

I've gotta disagree. I think they go to unneccesary lengths with these comments just to remind audiences Bond is a great lover. Actions speak louder than words for me. But I will give the screenplay props for its balance in this way, rather than throwing in another woman for Bond to mess around with just for the sake of it.

And on the May Day thing, I didn't think they went to unneccesary lengths on this one at all. It's a kind of irony that Bond, the great lover and big-time horndog, gets stuck for once with somebody that he doesn't particularly want to be with, but does to maintain his cover. The look on Moore's face in this scene is priceless. Like Q says in LTK, "When on a mission, sometimes 007 must do everything at his disposal."

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Turn
I've gotta disagree. I think they go to unneccesary lengths with these comments just to remind audiences Bond is a great lover. Actions speak louder than words for me.

Well you'll get no disagreement from me on wanting to see Tim's Bond have more sexy love scenes!!

And on the May Day thing, I didn't think they went to unneccesary lengths on this one at all. It's a kind of irony that Bond, the great lover and big-time horndog, gets stuck for once with somebody that he doesn't particularly want to be with, but does to maintain his cover. The look on Moore's face in this scene is priceless. Like Q says in LTK, "When on a mission, sometimes 007 must do everything at his disposal."

That's a good point, I hadn't considered that. It *is* terribly ironic to see Roger's Bond actually forced to bed a woman that he's not interested in. Still, I do find the scene a bit painful to watch...