31 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I remember back in the mid nineties, when Brosnan was just starting out as Bond, Dalton was the odd duck of the series (it seemed). Many of the criticisms that are being levied at Craig right now were being thrown at Dalton (he doesnt look like Bond, he looks like a villain, etc.). I always backed him though, after the age of Roger Moore he seemed like a breath of fresh air, it's a pity he never got to do a third, while both of his films feel at odds with each other, I feel a third film would have cemented his portrayal of Bond and really shown us what he was trying to do with the character.

Over the last three days I watched both of his films again, as I did with Craig's two films a few weeks ago. It is an interesting parallel actually, seeing how his first film plays like a classic Bond film and his second is wildly different, even going so far as to divide fans. I've always favored LTK over LD, and this time is no different. While it's true the first film does play closer to what we expect a Bond film to be, LTK is much more ambitious (though maybe not ambitious enough) and is the film that get's much more attention from me. While I will concede that LTK looks extremely cheap...and yes, at times it tries to emulate the action films of the time period, once the film goes to Isthmus City things really take off.

What strikes me though about both of his films, is that the action is borne out of the narrative. Never once does it feel like they're throwing in an action scene just for the sake of it. Something that would plague the Brosnan films, and yes (just to show I'm not downing Pierce) even the Craig films. Say what you will about him, Wilson seemed able to craft tight exciting films that are incredibly well paced, and yes I fully expect that statement to get picked apart. But there is no denying that Dalton's two films are much better crafted than the schizophrenic films we got in the next decade.

I couldn't leave this thread without commenting on Dalton himself! Truly if there was ever a Bond who commanded the screen, Dalton was the man. In the intervening years I had forgotten how much presence he has (another statement I expect to be picked apart by some), while he's not as physical as the other Bond's (perhaps a fault of the scripting?), he sure is a force to be reckoned with, especially when he's determined. Something sadly Brosnan wasn't able to convey.


I hope my ramblings were entertaining (amusing even), I just wanted to do something different than a "dull" reviewing thread

[Dell Deaton]

Certainly wouldn't want to leave this fine post standing without endorsement here.

It's no secret that I am a strong fan of what Timothy Dalton brought to James Bond on the big screen, both in and of itself, and as true to the Ian Fleming vision. The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are obviously different, if not evolutionary (revolutionary?) in progression. I think this reflected a growing confidence in Mr Dalton, as well as a deference to the very strong (and substantiated) opinions he brought to moving the franchise in a certain direction. It's hard to communicate in a brief fan forum thread what it was like in those days, actually reading the press leading up to the replacement of Roger Moore, who I also liked (and like) and respected (and respect) - as Mr Dalton clearly did as well.

Contemporaneous issues of magazines I acquired at the time, such as Starlog, are away on loan right now. But when they come back, perhaps some quotes will be in order. Quite revealing.

For now, I was struck in particular by a few things you wrote here. I do agree about the action seeming better integrated into and in support of the narrative; it was very natural. I would not say that the Daniel Craig films somehow "must" be included for criticism here, but, in fact, suffer greatly from this. Don't get me wrong: There are great action sequences, well-executed. No criticism of the actor. But they're not Bondian. They seemed in Casino Royale and even more so in Quantum of Solace as gratuitous, which is something that compromises a 007 film. Now that I think of it, I do believe Michael G Wilson should be credited with the preferable approach seen in the Dalton era.

As an actor, Timothy Dalton had the greatest range - in both moments, and as reflected over time. In some cases, I think he could have benefited from better directing (eg, either ditch the one-liners, such as after the forklift scene, or get it right). But there's ample evidence, as you say, that back then Bond was leading the genre, as opposed to following it.

[JimmyBond]

For now, I was struck in particular by a few things you wrote here. I do agree about the action seeming better integrated into and in support of the narrative; it was very natural. I would not say that the Daniel Craig films somehow "must" be included for criticism here, but, in fact, suffer greatly from this. Don't get me wrong: There are great action sequences, well-executed. No criticism of the actor. But they're not Bondian. They seemed in Casino Royale and even more so in Quantum of Solace as gratuitous, which is something that compromises a 007 film. Now that I think of it, I do believe Michael G Wilson should be credited with the preferable approach seen in the Dalton era.

That struck out to me as well. What surprised me the most is how little action there actually is in Dalton's two films. That makes what action sequences there are stand out even more. When you have an action sequences every ten or so minutes, like in the following films, it takes something away from the "Specialness" of if it...if that's even a word.

[Safari Suit]

Hmm, I'd actually say the action gets a little excessive and monotonous in the last half-hour of TLD. It's the film's only serious flaw as far as I'm concerned

[mttvolcano]

I like this post, gives Dalton credit where it needs it. For a man in only two bond films he really estabalished (I believe) how the character really was, maybe in flemings mind. Of course Roger was fun and a different Bond, but Dalton brought so much more depth.

[Dell Deaton]

Hmm, I'd actually say the action gets a little excessive and monotonous in the last half-hour of TLD. It's the film's only serious flaw as far as I'm concerned

While this was certainly my impression when I first saw the film (when it opened) in the theater, I don't think this is a "Dalton" thing. Rather, it's sorta like blaming Brosnan for the bad CGI and invisible car that came during his tenure.

[Matt_13]

I really wish LTK had a better director. It had everything else going for it. Only Glen could make such an ugly looking adventure. Ah well, I like them both regardless.

[Dell Deaton]

I really wish LTK had a better director. It had everything else going for it. Only Glen could make such an ugly looking adventure. Ah well, I like them both regardless.

Any particular example you have in mind when you say this?

I actually like a lot of what he's done. Also found his autobiography quite interesting in terms of Bond, as well as having enjoyed the film commentaries he provided (with the Ultimate Editions).

[JimmyBond]

I really wish LTK had a better director. It had everything else going for it. Only Glen could make such an ugly looking adventure. Ah well, I like them both regardless.

Any particular example you have in mind when you say this?

I actually like a lot of what he's done. Also found his autobiography quite interesting in terms of Bond, as well as having enjoyed the film commentaries he provided (with the Ultimate Editions).

Well Bond does spend the first half of the film in and around Florida suburbs. Compared to Bond films of old where Bond was always surrounded in glamour it feels really small potatoes to see him sneaking around in Felix's home. Plus all the Florida scenes do look really cheap. Especially the scene that immediately begins after the title sequence is over.

[Safari Suit]

Hmm, I'd actually say the action gets a little excessive and monotonous in the last half-hour of TLD. It's the film's only serious flaw as far as I'm concerned

While this was certainly my impression when I first saw the film (when it opened) in the theater, I don't think this is a "Dalton" thing. Rather, it's sorta like blaming Brosnan for the bad CGI and invisible car that came during his tenure.

Huh? Where did I blame Dalton?

[Dell Deaton]

Hmm, I'd actually say the action gets a little excessive and monotonous in the last half-hour of TLD. It's the film's only serious flaw as far as I'm concerned

While this was certainly my impression when I first saw the film (when it opened) in the theater, I don't think this is a "Dalton" thing. Rather, it's sorta like blaming Brosnan for the bad CGI and invisible car that came during his tenure.

Huh? Where did I blame Dalton?

Where did I say that you had?

[Safari Suit]

Well, nowhere I guess, but... are we really getting so precious about the Bond actors that we're going to start defending them from attacks they aren't getting?

[Revelator]

Well Bond does spend the first half of the film in and around Florida suburbs.

He spends it in Key West, which is one of the most picturesque parts of the United States. And the surroundings there are considerably better-looking than those in Isthmus City. I think American Bond fans tend to get a bit jaded by American locations--I doubt that as many overseas viewers feel the same.

[Gothamite]

He spends it in Key West, which is one of the most picturesque parts of the United States. And the surroundings there are considerably better-looking than those in Isthmus City. I think American Bond fans tend to get a bit jaded by American locations--I doubt that as many overseas viewers feel the same.

Well, I'm Irish and I sometimes find it a bit jarring when Bond shows up in the States. Someone said in one of the Forum Reviews of the movies "We don't want to see America in these films. We see enough of it in other films," or something to that effect.

While I don't necessarily see Bond staying out of the US as a necessity (heck, Goldfinger and CR both have important sections of their plots taking place in America) I can understand the criticism.

That's not one of my faults with LTK, though.

[JimmyBond]

Well Bond does spend the first half of the film in and around Florida suburbs.

He spends it in Key West, which is one of the most picturesque parts of the United States. And the surroundings there are considerably better-looking than those in Isthmus City. I think American Bond fans tend to get a bit jaded by American locations--I doubt that as many overseas viewers feel the same.

I can't argue there. I see enough of America when I walk outside...and especially from movies.

[Biggy1954]

I am not much of a Dalton fan. The Living Daylights is the better of the two films. The action, although there is not much of it, is excellent. I love the pre-title sequence, and the scene where Bond and Necros hang outside of the plane while holding onto the net. It has seriousness, but it is also very light. It has a nice merging of the lightness from Connery and Moore's films, and the seriousness of From From Russia With Love and For Your Eyes Only. It is not pretentious like Casino Royale; it doesn't try to be something more than what it is. The plot is very strong and engaging. The main problem with The Living Daylights is that it lacks a memorable villain such as Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, or Scaramanga. I'm still not sure who the main villain is, whether it's Whitaker or Koskov. It never makes that clear.

Licence To Kill is in my opinion, the worst of the James Bond films. It is very tedious and slow, despite a couple of good action scenes. It tries to be serious, but has silly campy stuff like the bar fight (why that dancer is dancing while everyone is fighting is beyond me), the fish wink at the end, the silly wedding scene, and the awkward jokes during the truck chase like having Sanchez's men go after Bond while being covered in dirt. The plot is too simple and the film has trouble sustaining it for 2+ hours; this is why there are a lot of tedious moments.

The main problem with Licence To Kill is that it is pure 100% 80s sleaze. It lacks the class of earlier Bond films, and feels like a low budget Cannon film or one of those sleazy low budget action films one would see on Cinemax at 2a.m. It is on the level of many sleazy and violent action films of the 80s like Death Wish 2 and 10 To Midnight. I know many like to compare it to Miami Vice, but I'll compare it to Death Wish. It is too much like the Death Wish films in that it copies their plots and formulas; the anti-hero has a friend that is murdered or maimed, and he goes against the law and becomes a vigilante. One could have easily taken Dalton out, replaced him with Charles Bronson, and called it Death Wish 5. It pretty much feels like a Death Wish sequel. It is also too violent for a Bond film; the exploding head, and Dario being chopped up by the cocaine grinder add to its sleaziness. It feels like a slasher film at times.

The other problem with Licence To Kill is that it feels like every other action film made in the 80s, even Lethal Weapon. It has similar production values, music, and levels of violence and sleaziness that many 80s action films had. Bond films were great because they felt unique, had their own style, and were not like any other action films. Licence To Kill lacks that uniqueness.

[James Bond Jr]

I am not much of a Dalton fan. The Living Daylights is the better of the two films. The action, although there is not much of it, is excellent. I love the pre-title sequence, and the scene where Bond and Necros hang outside of the plane while holding onto the net. It has seriousness, but it is also very light. It has a nice merging of the lightness from Connery and Moore's films, and the seriousness of From From Russia With Love and For Your Eyes Only. It is not pretentious like Casino Royale; it doesn't try to be something more than what it is. The plot is very strong and engaging. The main problem with The Living Daylights is that it lacks a memorable villain such as Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, or Scaramanga. I'm still not sure who the main villain is, whether it's Whitaker or Koskov. It never makes that clear.

Licence To Kill is in my opinion, the worst of the James Bond films. It is very tedious and slow, despite a couple of good action scenes. It tries to be serious, but has silly campy stuff like the bar fight (why that dancer is dancing while everyone is fighting is beyond me), the fish wink at the end, the silly wedding scene, and the awkward jokes during the truck chase like having Sanchez's men go after Bond while being covered in dirt. The plot is too simple and the film has trouble sustaining it for 2+ hours; this is why there are a lot of tedious moments.

The main problem with Licence To Kill is that it is pure 100% 80s sleaze. It lacks the class of earlier Bond films, and feels like a low budget Cannon film or one of those sleazy low budget action films one would see on Cinemax at 2a.m. It is on the level of many sleazy and violent action films of the 80s like Death Wish 2 and 10 To Midnight. I know many like to compare it to Miami Vice, but I'll compare it to Death Wish. It is too much like the Death Wish films in that it copies their plots and formulas; the anti-hero has a friend that is murdered or maimed, and he goes against the law and becomes a vigilante. One could have easily taken Dalton out, replaced him with Charles Bronson, and called it Death Wish 5. It pretty much feels like a Death Wish sequel. It is also too violent for a Bond film; the exploding head, and Dario being chopped up by the cocaine grinder add to its sleaziness. It feels like a slasher film at times.

The other problem with Licence To Kill is that it feels like every other action film made in the 80s, even Lethal Weapon. It has similar production values, music, and levels of violence and sleaziness that many 80s action films had. Bond films were great because they felt unique, had their own style, and were not like any other action films. Licence To Kill lacks that uniqueness.

I agree with you on just about everything you've said, buddy. But I still really enjoy LTK. Having Bond in a gritty, exploitation film was a move that ages well in the history books. As a time capsule, its interesting to see a Bond film made so cheaply in such a bland time period AND ITS STILL WATCHABLE. We saw Bond in an incredibly violent mission with mostly realistic villains for a change. The seediness and sleaze sort of reinforces the story for me. It has its camp, but its very fun and (mostly) funny stuff. Plus, its balanced by the overwhelming grit and action. I think the majority of the script is what a Fleming novel would have resembled if he was still alive and writing in the 1980s. Its one film I never get tired of watching.

Dalton is a great Bond, but I don't think we ever saw him at his best. Its like he was headed into greatness but had the series taken from him before that happened. He is the most (charismatically) demanding Bond actor, but I could never get behind him as a charmer. I know Fleming didn't make Bond much of a charmer, but I really love that in all of the other actors' versions. Dalton doesn't have that effortless cool and class that the others had. I can't see his Bond seducing any woman. But he did have the balance of intense acting chops and a special manly charm that only Connery and Craig have. Dalton ties with Moore as my least favorite Bond.

Edited by James Bond Jr, 13 January 2011 - 01:37 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

LTK is one of my favorite Bond outings along with FRWL. They actually had Bond working for the villain, as he so often did in the books like Goldfinger and I believe Man With the Golden Gun as well. And what stood out wasn't so much the violence, which came in sudden intense bursts, but Dalton playing with the head of a criminal that meant business, and wasn't like a slumming stand up comic. My favorite is when Sanchez admits knowing Bond was in the Secret Service. Bond gives a short explanation about that. Sanchez said, "So you were a problem solver?" And Bond responds, "More like a problem eliminator."

And he progresses with making an ego maniac paranoid about his own people.

[Dell Deaton]

Part of what's striking me here about this thread is the idea of assessing Dalton's Bonds in terms of their time and context.

For example, when it's said that his movies were "of" the 1980s, the reality is that they were, in fact, made in the '80s. There were certain marketplace realities then, just like technology dictates at the time of Dr No would make it less than apples-to-apples for one to focus on rear-projection limitations there. I don't see how Timothy Dalton could have been given the opportunity to do a scene like the stairwell fight in Casino Royale in 1987 or 1989; showing what signs of dirt and distress as he did at the end of Licence to Kill was less than what seems to be the required presentation of Daniel Craig, increasingly now in Quantum of Solace a quarter-century later.

Budget is even a further matter. The Cubby Broccoli "autobiography" (the "auto" degree of which remains in question given his passing before it was complete) talks about ever increasing budget constraints, which, in the case of Licence to Kill, dictated location. If memory serves, John Glen expressed similar concerns in For My Eyes Only.

To revisit some budgets (from IMDb)--

• For Your Eyes Only (1981) @ $28.0 million
• Octopussy (1983) @ $27.5 million
• A View to a Kill (1985) @ $30.0 million
• The Living Daylights (1987) @ $30.0 million
• Licence to Kill (1989) @ $32.0 million

Finally, the thing about James Bond exhibiting a "cool" confidence is interesting to me. I've never gotten that impression from the original Fleming books. So I think it became an element of the on-screen 007 brand through a number of factors. First and foremost, the times: The 1960s. Then I think there was a strong element of trying to flesh out what was otherwise perceived by the powers that be as a two-dimensional character in the books, looking to Ian Fleming, the man, for details. And then there's the trajectory set by Terence Young.

Whether or not Dalton was capable of this, he didn't show it on the screen. That said, of course, he was very clear in stating that he did not read the Fleming books to indicate Bond should be played that way - and thus did, as this thread seems to demonstrate, the best job of faithfully bringing that to the screen.

Ironically, Daniel Craig is probably the furthest away from both the confident-cool and the Ian Fleming Bond of any actor to play the role for Eon Productions. People like him. And he strikes audiences as appropriate to these times. I think that's fine, and see no need to re-define Fleming in order to insist that he somehow likens back to that intent.

The real downside to such efforts is that they fog objective analysis and credit to Dalton's work.

[Messervy]

"May I offer an opinion?", as Craig would say ...
Dalton's work on Bond was superb. Irrespective of the other angles (whether the action is well paced, whether it was too 80's, etc.), I think what really is substantial with him is the sheer brilliance of his talent.
Apart from the end scene of OHMSS when Bond holds Tracy dead in his arms, Dalton is the only one whom I find was able to convey genuine emotion with his performance. He's a combination of fragility and determination, and his portrayal has real depth. I don't think LTK plot was the best, far from it, yet I find that the power of his performance elevates the whole movie.

[Sir James Moloney]

"May I offer an opinion?", as Craig would say ...
Dalton's work on Bond was superb. Irrespective of the other angles (whether the action is well paced, whether it was too 80's, etc.), I think what really is substantial with him is the sheer brilliance of his talent.
Apart from the end scene of OHMSS when Bond holds Tracy dead in his arms, Dalton is the only one whom I find was able to convey genuine emotion with his performance. He's a combination of fragility and determination, and his portrayal has real depth. I don't think LTK plot was the best, far from it, yet I find that the power of his performance elevates the whole movie.

Exactly, and you can really tell by his interviews, he knew what he was doing, he really knew the Bond character well. Just watch the first contact he had with the press in TLD, classy.

[iBond]

I thought Dalton looked like a great Bond. Not for one second would I second guess his appearance as not looking the part of 007, unlike Daniel Craig.

[TheREAL008]

I thought Dalton looked like a great Bond. Not for one second would I second guess his appearance as not looking the part of 007, unlike Daniel Craig.

I mean no disrespect, but must you really keep bashing Daniel? Even in unrelated topics?

[iBond]

I thought Dalton looked like a great Bond. Not for one second would I second guess his appearance as not looking the part of 007, unlike Daniel Craig.

I mean no disrespect, but must you really keep bashing Daniel? Even in unrelated topics?

Just being honest. And if you look at the beginning of the topic, it was said that some thought that both Dalton and Craig don't look like 007. I was just responding to that. I mean no disrespect either. Everything I state is my opinion and mine alone. Here is the part I was focusing on and responding to.

I remember back in the mid nineties, when Brosnan was just starting out as Bond, Dalton was the odd duck of the series (it seemed). Many of the criticisms that are being levied at Craig right now were being thrown at Dalton (he doesnt look like Bond, he looks like a villain, etc.)...

So yes, I was referring to that. And as for the Craig remark, I'm not going to lie but I don't see him as a Bond, but more as a possible villain.

Edited by iBond, 14 April 2011 - 07:54 PM.

[00 Brosnan]

I thought Dalton looked like a great Bond. Not for one second would I second guess his appearance as not looking the part of 007, unlike Daniel Craig.

Personally, I find Connery and Brosnan to be the most "Bond" looking. The only problem I had with Dalton's look was his hair was noticeably thinning...quite a bit right in the middle and in some scenes it didn't even look like he combed it, like he just got out of bed or something. As for Craig, I agree he doesn't have the traditional Bond look, but it's not hard for me to imagine him as Bond.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 15 April 2011 - 11:42 AM.

[jaguar007]

I remember back in the mid nineties, when Brosnan was just starting out as Bond, Dalton was the odd duck of the series (it seemed). Many of the criticisms that are being levied at Craig right now were being thrown at Dalton (he doesnt look like Bond, he looks like a villain, etc.)...

So yes, I was referring to that. And as for the Craig remark, I'm not going to lie but I don't see him as a Bond, but more as a possible villain.

I don't recall people saying Dalton did not look like Bond, in fact I remember a magazine from 1987 that said Dalton looked "genetically engineered to play James Bond". It was either The Face or GQ.

[Dustin]

Doubt I ever heard complaints about Dalton not looking the part either. His hairdo in LTK was not particularly flattering in some scenes, but it was Bond all through. Some held him to be closest to Fleming and most critics agreed that he was looking the most like Bond since Connery.

[iBond]

I remember back in the mid nineties, when Brosnan was just starting out as Bond, Dalton was the odd duck of the series (it seemed). Many of the criticisms that are being levied at Craig right now were being thrown at Dalton (he doesnt look like Bond, he looks like a villain, etc.)...

So yes, I was referring to that. And as for the Craig remark, I'm not going to lie but I don't see him as a Bond, but more as a possible villain.

I don't recall people saying Dalton did not look like Bond, in fact I remember a magazine from 1987 that said Dalton looked "genetically engineered to play James Bond". It was either The Face or GQ.

I completely agree with you. He had the best looks for 007. I was referring to Craig and how I don't see him as Bond.

I thought Dalton looked like a great Bond. Not for one second would I second guess his appearance as not looking the part of 007, unlike Daniel Craig.

Personally, I find Connery and Brosnan to be the most "Bond" looking. The only problem I had with Dalton's look was his hair was noticeably thinning...quite a bit right in the middle and in some scenes it didn't even look like he combed it, like he just got out of bed or something. As for Craig, I agree he doesn't have the traditional Bond look, but it's not hard for me to imagine him as Bond.

Yeah, I don't understand why he combed his hair back in Licence to Kill. It showed his receding hairline even more. Thank God it was only during the casino scenes and it went back to normal later in the film.

Edited by iBond, 19 April 2011 - 02:38 AM.

[00 Brosnan]

I remember back in the mid nineties, when Brosnan was just starting out as Bond, Dalton was the odd duck of the series (it seemed). Many of the criticisms that are being levied at Craig right now were being thrown at Dalton (he doesnt look like Bond, he looks like a villain, etc.)...

So yes, I was referring to that. And as for the Craig remark, I'm not going to lie but I don't see him as a Bond, but more as a possible villain.

I don't recall people saying Dalton did not look like Bond, in fact I remember a magazine from 1987 that said Dalton looked "genetically engineered to play James Bond". It was either The Face or GQ.

I completely agree with you. He had the best looks for 007. I was referring to Craig and how I don't see him as Bond.

I thought Dalton looked like a great Bond. Not for one second would I second guess his appearance as not looking the part of 007, unlike Daniel Craig.

Personally, I find Connery and Brosnan to be the most "Bond" looking. The only problem I had with Dalton's look was his hair was noticeably thinning...quite a bit right in the middle and in some scenes it didn't even look like he combed it, like he just got out of bed or something. As for Craig, I agree he doesn't have the traditional Bond look, but it's not hard for me to imagine him as Bond.

Yeah, I don't understand why he combed his hair back in Licence to Kill. It showed his receding hairline even more. Thank God it was only during the casino scenes and it went back to normal later in the film.

Now that you mention it, the very noticeable balding is only really noticeable in LTK. Though, for some reason whenever I think of Dalton I always picture him with his LTK look even though it's one of my least liked Bond films and TLD is one of my favorites.

[Major Tallon]

I remember back in the mid nineties, when Brosnan was just starting out as Bond, Dalton was the odd duck of the series (it seemed). Many of the criticisms that are being levied at Craig right now were being thrown at Dalton (he doesnt look like Bond, he looks like a villain, etc.)...

So yes, I was referring to that. And as for the Craig remark, I'm not going to lie but I don't see him as a Bond, but more as a possible villain.

I don't recall people saying Dalton did not look like Bond, in fact I remember a magazine from 1987 that said Dalton looked "genetically engineered to play James Bond". It was either The Face or GQ.

I completely agree with you. He had the best looks for 007. I was referring to Craig and how I don't see him as Bond.

I agree that Dalton most closely resembles the character that Fleming wrote, but it's his performance that convinces me that he's Bond. Let me urge you not to be too hung up on physical appearance in judging an actor's suitability for a role. I recall the first time I saw Connery on film, and I was disappointed that he didn't have the distinctive scar down the right cheek that's such a prominent part of Fleming's description of the character. But you know, I think he played Bond pretty well. Similarly, Colin Firth looks nothing like George VI, but it didn't get in the way of his portrayal of the king being judged, shall we say, adequate. I've been a Bond fan for almost 50 years, and I have no trouble accepting Daniel Craig in the part.