Timothy Dalton: most underrated actor of all time?
TMC
Inspired by a recent post about by Caz from Let’s go to the movies,
and the fact that award season looms upon us, I thought I’d bring
forward the one actor that I thought deserve far more recognition than
he currently gets.
Perhaps the title of this post could be construed as a bit of a
hyperbole. But I make no apologies that I think Timothy Dalton is a
fantastic actor, and for the life of me cannot fathom why he isn’t as
big a star as other equally talented thespians like Daniel Day-Lewis
or Michael Caine.
Like most people, I first saw Dalton in his debut as Bond in The
Living Daylights. The film itself is entertaining, albeit far from
perfect. But the best part of the movie is Dalton, no question about
it. Though I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond, seeing Dalton bring out
the darker and tougher side of the British spy is so refreshing and
captivating to watch. Ok, I’m a woman so naturally I expect Bond to be
somewhat of an eye candy too, and Dalton — who at 6′2″ is the tallest
Bond ever — is both devastatingly handsome and sexy in that dark &
dangerous kind of way. Not to mention that irresistible deep and raspy
voice — I could read this guy read a phone book all night long! But
looks alone doesn’t make an actor, and Dalton is definitely one whose
talent and acting tenacity transcend even that impossibly chiseled
looks.
I’m not the only one who share that sentiment in regard to his Bond
role. In the September ‘09 issue of Total Film, journalist ‘ Richard
Matthews wrote Is it just me?… or is Timothy Dalton the best Bond’ as
he reassessed both ‘The Living Daylights’ (1987) and ‘Licence to
Kill’ (1989) in light of their recent DVD re-release. In that article,
Matthews said that Dalton conformed to Ian Fleming’s blueprint for
James Bond perfectly: “black hair falling down over the right eyebrow…
something cruel in the mouth and the eyes cold”. And in both TLD in
1987 and LTK in 1989, according to Matthews, Dalton “brought Fleming’s
fractured, damaged psychology back to Bond”. Even this National
Lampoon writer defied the “commonly agreed-upon” Bond ranking in his
Apology to Dalton article.
This UK’s Guardian blogger back in 2006 definitely took the words
straight out of my mouth:
Ironically, the very characteristics that got Dalton slammed are the
very same things that the Bond producers are praising Daniel Craig
for. On and on, they have said they want Bond to be closer to the
original Ian Fleming character. They want him to be grittier, darker
and less jokey. What they really want, it seems, is to have Dalton
back.
Some people in various Bond forums argue that Craig lack the
sophistication of a British spy, instead behaved more like a thug-ish
action star. That’s another topic for another post but I’m definitely
in the camp that both Craig and Dalton epitomized that merciless grit
and ruthlessness like no other Bond before them. Yet Dalton was
clearly way ahead of his time as Craig took all the credit for doing
what he had started.
Dalton as Rochester
But Dalton is more than just a James Bond actor. Just a few years ago
I came across the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre where Dalton played
Charlotte Brontë’s ultimate Byronic hero Mr. Rochester. I totally fell
in love with his brooding and enigmatic performance, and he makes the
poorly-made production of the miniseries entirely worthwhile. He
continued to impress me in a variety of things I’ve watched him in:
The Lion in Winter (his debut alongside Peter O’Toole and Katherine
Hepburn), Framed (a fascinating crime thriller with David Morrissey),
as Julius Caesar in Cleopatra, and another Brontë’s adaptation
Wuthering Heights. Any one of which warrants some kind of award
nomination.
The thing is with Dalton, he’s great at playing both hero and villain,
as displayed in his scene-stealing turn in Flash Gordon, The Rocketeer
and the Simon Pegg comedy Hot Fuzz. Heck, he even played a comic-strip
character believably as Basil St. John in Brenda Starr. He even dared
to venture into one of Hollywood’s all-time classic roles of Rhett
Butler, in the Gone with the Wind’s ill-conceived follow-up Scarlett
and [gasp!] even silly rom-com in The Beautician & The Beast. Sure,
those two are definitely poor role choices, but I don’t think it
undermines his talent as an actor.
The classically-trained thespian is perhaps most comfortable on stage,
having toured with the Royal Shakespeare Company and Prospect Theater
Company in England. He’s also keeping busy doing voice work for
various audio books, so perhaps the lack of movie roles is his own
choosing. Based on this UK’s Metro interview, he strikes me as someone
who’s entirely at peace with his career and is unapologetic about his
choices, even his decision not to do his third Bond role. Still, I
can’t help but wonder why he’s not offered the roles that actors of
his stature keep getting? Think Anthony Hopkins (who had his debut in
the same film The Lion in Winter), Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart and
the other two I’ve mentioned above. As I told Marc on his The
Rocketeer post, it’d be nice to see Dalton in The Wolfman in Tony
Hopkins role, or in Clash of the Titans as Zeus instead of Liam
Neeson, or something like Michael Caine’s Is Anybody There?. We all
know he has the chops and at sixty-five is still far more dashing —
and Botox-free — than even actors ten or fifteen years younger.
Instead, all I can look forward to is his voice-over part in Toy Story
3 as Mr. Pricklepants, a hedgehog toy with thespian tendencies. Ha!
For all of you Dr. Who fans, he’s also been reported to guest star in
David Tennant’s finale as the titular character. Tennant was quoted
praising Dalton to Radio Times, “He was lovely. He had the panache and
the skill of a movie star, without any of the alarming eccentricities
or peculiar demands.”
I don’t expect anything less from this classy actor. Here’s hoping a
starring role, or even a pivotal part in an ensemble flick, pops up in
the horizon soon.
So folks, do you have your own analysis of an underrated thespian? If
so, let’s hear it.
Fr J. Hackett
> http://flixchatter.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/timothy-dalton-most-under...
>
> Inspired by a recent post about by Caz from Let’s go to the movies,
> and the fact that award season looms upon us, I thought I’d bring
> forward the one actor that I thought deserve far more recognition than
> he currently gets.
He was too stagey for my liking. Too actor-y.
Connery's elbow smashing into the alarm in Thunderball
and Craig's tossing away of the car keys in Casino Royale
is what a screen Bond should be, purely in my own opinion,
of course. There should be an arrogance about the character.
Dalton was too theatrically brooding for me.
It didn't help matters that he had John Glen directing his films.
The 80's Bonds were the weakest of all the decades IMO.
fr.
Eric Grayson
<e8102640-030f-4f3e...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Fr
J. Hackett <dontbesob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If it's any consolation, I agree with TMC. Dalton brought back a real
Bondian feel to the films after Moore made several comedies with a Bond
name on them.
I think Dalton has really gotten maligned by the public, had some
problems with both of his films but he was the best thing in them.
And yes, he had an elegance and suave character that Craig utterly
lacks in my humble opinion.
Dalton's always great in everything he tries. Craig is great in most
things, but I don't buy him as Bond. Sorry, I just don't.
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
>>>http://flixchatter.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/timothy-dalton-most-under...
I agree with you on Dalton's performance. I have never agreed with your
criticism of Craig. He's never played elegant nor suave that I can recall.
The producers cast him because they wanted a Bond to be harder, darker,
more of a thug.
Sean Connery never would have left what's-his-name's wife un-boinked.
She was so disappointed.
I like Craig's characterization. He was hired to embody a different
characterization, just as Roger Moore was hired to up the spoofiness
quotient over the later Connery films.
We lost something in the Bond series in that Dalton never got a top notch
script and the six years of legal wrangling prevented any Bond movies
from being produced. It's too bad.
Paul Clarke
http://www.hmss.com/films/memory/
Please forgive the shameless self-promotion!
--
"Enter an age of unknown terrors, pagan worship and virgin sacrifice!"
(When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth)
CapCity
"Paul Clarke" <jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4EOVm.56133$Db2.43376@edtnps83...
>I agree completely, and even wrote an article on Dalton as Bond:
>http://www.hmss.com/films/memory/
>
> Please forgive the shameless self-promotion!
>
That is easier to forgive than top-posting
> TMC wrote:
>> http://flixchatter.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/timothy-dalton-most-underrated-actor/
>>
>> Inspired by a recent post about by Caz from Let's go to the movies,
>> and the fact that award season looms upon us, I thought I'd bring
>> forward the one actor that I thought deserve far more recognition than
>> he currently gets.
>>
>> Perhaps the title of this post could be construed as a bit of a
>> hyperbole. But I make no apologies that I think Timothy Dalton is a
>> fantastic actor, and for the life of me cannot fathom why he isn't as
>> big a star as other equally talented thespians like Daniel Day-Lewis
>> or Michael Caine.
>>
>> Like most people, I first saw Dalton in his debut as Bond in The
>> Living Daylights. The film itself is entertaining, albeit far from
>> perfect. But the best part of the movie is Dalton, no question about
>> it. Though I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond, seeing Dalton bring out
>> the darker and tougher side of the British spy is so refreshing and
>> captivating to watch. Ok, I'm a woman so naturally I expect Bond to be
>> somewhat of an eye candy too, and Dalton - who at 6'2? is the tallest
>> Bond ever - is both devastatingly handsome and sexy in that dark &
>> dangerous kind of way. Not to mention that irresistible deep and raspy
>> voice - I could read this guy read a phone book all night long! But
>> looks alone doesn't make an actor, and Dalton is definitely one whose
>> talent and acting tenacity transcend even that impossibly chiseled
>> looks.
>>
>> I'm not the only one who share that sentiment in regard to his Bond
>> role. In the September '09 issue of Total Film, journalist ' Richard
>> Matthews wrote Is it just me?. or is Timothy Dalton the best Bond' as
>> he reassessed both 'The Living Daylights' (1987) and 'Licence to
>> Kill' (1989) in light of their recent DVD re-release. In that article,
>> Matthews said that Dalton conformed to Ian Fleming's blueprint for
>> James Bond perfectly: "black hair falling down over the right eyebrow.
>> something cruel in the mouth and the eyes cold". And in both TLD in
>> 1987 and LTK in 1989, according to Matthews, Dalton "brought Fleming's
>> fractured, damaged psychology back to Bond". Even this National
>> Lampoon writer defied the "commonly agreed-upon" Bond ranking in his
>> Apology to Dalton article.
>>
>> This UK's Guardian blogger back in 2006 definitely took the words
>> straight out of my mouth:
>>
>> Ironically, the very characteristics that got Dalton slammed are the
>> very same things that the Bond producers are praising Daniel Craig
>> for. On and on, they have said they want Bond to be closer to the
>> original Ian Fleming character. They want him to be grittier, darker
>> and less jokey. What they really want, it seems, is to have Dalton
>> back.
>>
>> Some people in various Bond forums argue that Craig lack the
>> sophistication of a British spy, instead behaved more like a thug-ish
>> action star. That's another topic for another post but I'm definitely
>> in the camp that both Craig and Dalton epitomized that merciless grit
>> and ruthlessness like no other Bond before them. Yet Dalton was
>> clearly way ahead of his time as Craig took all the credit for doing
>> what he had started.
>>
>>
>> Dalton as Rochester
>> But Dalton is more than just a James Bond actor. Just a few years ago
>> I came across the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre where Dalton played
>> Charlotte Bront�'s ultimate Byronic hero Mr. Rochester. I totally fell
>> in love with his brooding and enigmatic performance, and he makes the
>> poorly-made production of the miniseries entirely worthwhile. He
>> continued to impress me in a variety of things I've watched him in:
>> The Lion in Winter (his debut alongside Peter O'Toole and Katherine
>> Hepburn), Framed (a fascinating crime thriller with David Morrissey),
>> as Julius Caesar in Cleopatra, and another Bront�'s adaptation
>> know he has the chops and at sixty-five is still far more dashing -
>> and Botox-free - than even actors ten or fifteen years younger.
Paul Clarke
> "Paul Clarke" <jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4EOVm.56133$Db2.43376@edtnps83...
>> I agree completely, and even wrote an article on Dalton as Bond:
>> http://www.hmss.com/films/memory/
>>
>> Please forgive the shameless self-promotion!
>>
>
> That is easier to forgive than top-posting
I've never understood the objection to "top-posting." I don't really
give a rat's arse where someone posts their reply.
Halmyre
> CapCity wrote:
> > "Paul Clarke" <jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4EOVm.56133$Db2.43376@edtnps83...
> >> I agree completely, and even wrote an article on Dalton as Bond:
> >> http://www.hmss.com/films/memory/
> >>
> >> Please forgive the shameless self-promotion!
> >>
> >
> > That is easier to forgive than top-posting
>
> I've never understood the objection to "top-posting." I don't really
> give a rat's arse where someone posts their reply.
>
But many others do.
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
They got that. But part of what always appealed to me about the Bond
character, even in the books, was his debonair quality, his ability to
move in top social circles. With Craig, he looks like a thug in a
suit, and it doesn't work for me.
It's possible that Craig is playing the way he's told, which is
unfortunate. If you're going to change things that much, you should
just make a series based on that character. It's not realistic, it's
not really Bond, it may have some dramatic resonance, so why not go
with that?
Again, a lot of people make it personal with Craig, and I really don't.
Craig is excellent and very versatile; I've seen him in a number of
movies where I thought he was an asset to the production, especially
the underrated Road to Perdition.
They've make a version of Casino Royale with grafted-on chase scenes
from Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard II, the middle 1/3 pretty
good Fleming, and the last third goofy. They've made a second feature
with spastic Cuisinart cutting. Maybe for the third film they can make
a Bond feature.
> Sean Connery never would have left what's-his-name's wife un-boinked.
> She was so disappointed.
>
> I like Craig's characterization. He was hired to embody a different
> characterization, just as Roger Moore was hired to up the spoofiness
> quotient over the later Connery films.
I don't like that either. And actually, I don't agree. The last
Connery film, DAF, is really the first Moore film. It's got a tone
change in it that marks the next ten years. I think there was a tone
change for silly over spectacle that was deliberately planned before
Moore got there, and I suspect it was a big part of why Connery left
(actually, he said it was...)
> We lost something in the Bond series in that Dalton never got a top notch
> script and the six years of legal wrangling prevented any Bond movies
> from being produced. It's too bad.
The Living Daylights is almost a good Bond film. It's got some overly
silly stuff in it that I don't like, but a really intense performance
and some good stunt work. I have more problems with License to Kill,
which has some really good Fleming stuff in it mixed with a low-budget
TV feel and sloppy overlong editing.
I've consistently said that in a lot of ways I feel that TLD is the
last real Bond film, and I still feel that way.
Eric
Paul Clarke
> In article <Ov7Wm.57778$PH1.20098@edtnps82>, jim_ca...@hotmail.com says...
>> CapCity wrote:
>>> "Paul Clarke" <jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4EOVm.56133$Db2.43376@edtnps83...
>>>> I agree completely, and even wrote an article on Dalton as Bond:
>>>> http://www.hmss.com/films/memory/
>>>>
>>>> Please forgive the shameless self-promotion!
>>>>
>>> That is easier to forgive than top-posting
>> I've never understood the objection to "top-posting." I don't really
>> give a rat's arse where someone posts their reply.
>>
>
> But many others do.
>
Well they're gonna have to get a grip and a little perspective and deal
with the occasional top posting.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>http://flixchatter.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/timothy-dalton-most-under...
I agree. But Bond was less debonair in the first novel.
>It's possible that Craig is playing the way he's told, which is
>unfortunate. If you're going to change things that much, you should
>just make a series based on that character. It's not realistic, it's
>not really Bond, it may have some dramatic resonance, so why not go
>with that?
Waitaminit: Come up with new ideas? I don't understand the concept.
>>Sean Connery never would have left what's-his-name's wife un-boinked.
>>She was so disappointed.
>>I like Craig's characterization. He was hired to embody a different
>>characterization, just as Roger Moore was hired to up the spoofiness
>>quotient over the later Connery films.
>I don't like that either. And actually, I don't agree. The last
>Connery film, DAF, is really the first Moore film.
We've discussed this many, many times. Note I phrased it "up the spoofiness
quotient" not "introduce spoofiness to the series".
Most of us trace it to GF, actually.
I like DAF's comedy, mostly because it's generally better than the comedy
in Moore's films. As a movie, it has serious flaws, but it's the best
comedy of the series.
>It's got a tone change in it that marks the next ten years. I think
>there was a tone change for silly over spectacle that was deliberately
>planned before Moore got there, and I suspect it was a big part of why
>Connery left (actually, he said it was...)
We all agree.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>I agree completely, and even wrote an article on Dalton as Bond:
>>>http://www.hmss.com/films/memory/
>>>Please forgive the shameless self-promotion!
>>That is easier to forgive than top-posting
>I've never understood the objection to "top-posting." I don't really
>give a rat's arse where someone posts their reply.
It's that English is read top to bottom and top posters rarely cut the
quote, just leaving enough for context. When top posters follow up to
each other, the quoted text tends to get absurdly long, and nobody coming
in late to the thread can follow what either is talking about. Quotes tend
to get badly messed up when they are several layers deep.
But top posting in and of itself makes it more difficult to read the quote,
then the new material that follows. If I'm not familiar with the thread,
no, I absolutely do not want to read the new material first.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
I like a lot of DAF but it's the first Moore film in ways other than
the spoofiness.
There was a conscious effort by the producers to downscale the "Fleming
sweep" (and the budget) and simultaneously up the spoofy quality. This
was continued and magnified in the Moore era.
The films weren't making as much money as they had a few years before
(TB, YOLT), and the serious approach (OHMSS) seemed not to work, so the
producers went with elements they thought worked.
They brought back Guy Hamilton from GF, which they thought worked.
They upped the spoofy quality, which had worked in a few films and had
also worked well in the Flint series, and to a lesser degree in the
Matt Helm series, and a dozen other films of the type.
So I believe that the whole idea of DAF is a reimagining of the Bond
universe, with a lesser scale and a spoofier quality, that continued
through the Moore years. I note that it's also tied to Mankiewicz, who
was a screenwriter on DAF, LALD, MWTGG, TSWLM (uncredited), and maybe
even MR (uncredited).
The budget went up again with TSWLM and MR, giving back more epic
sweep, but then went down again with FYEO, which is another reimagining
of the Bond universe. Less spoofy, cheaper. But the spoofy came back
more in OP and even more in AVTAK (which I find the low point in the
series).
DAF, to me, represents a response to the challenge of continuing to
make Bond relevant in a world that was no longer spy-obsessed, where
the grosses would be smaller but still substantial. I don't like the
choice they made, but it was successful.
Interestingly, this very choice made Connery unattractive for the part
because they couldn't continue to shell out the kind of $ and make it
still work.
So when I see DAF, I see a film directed by Guy Hamilton, script by Tom
Mankiewicz, a lower budget than it had had before, etc. It's the same
as LALD and TMWTTGG.
Now, interestingly, it is rather a transition film, since it still has
'scope cinematography, a little of the crash-cutting frame edits that
were used in the old days (gone by LALD), Technicolor (gone by LALD
too), and Connery...
But mostly, it's got the look and feel of a Moore film. Always felt
it, always will...
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>I like Craig's characterization. He was hired to embody a different
>>>>characterization, just as Roger Moore was hired to up the spoofiness
>>>>quotient over the later Connery films.
>>>I don't like that either. And actually, I don't agree. The last
>>>Connery film, DAF, is really the first Moore film.
>>We've discussed this many, many times. Note I phrased it "up the spoofiness
>>quotient" not "introduce spoofiness to the series".
>>Most of us trace it to GF, actually.
>>I like DAF's comedy, mostly because it's generally better than the comedy
>>in Moore's films. As a movie, it has serious flaws, but it's the best
>>comedy of the series.
>I like a lot of DAF but it's the first Moore film in ways other than
>the spoofiness.
>There was a conscious effort by the producers to downscale the "Fleming
>sweep" (and the budget)
No more on location shooting in Japan. But didn't several of the Moore movies
spend a lot of money on sets, too? They look expensive on screen, but what
do I know.
>and simultaneously up the spoofy quality. This was continued and magnified
>in the Moore era.
>The films weren't making as much money as they had a few years before
>(TB, YOLT), and the serious approach (OHMSS) seemed not to work, so the
>producers went with elements they thought worked.
>They brought back Guy Hamilton from GF, which they thought worked.
I continue to count GF as a new approach to Bond. I'd put GF and YOLT in
the same group.
Would anyone rank TB and OHMSS together? Both were absolutely straight
adaptations of Fleming.
>They upped the spoofy quality, which had worked in a few films and had
>also worked well in the Flint series, and to a lesser degree in the
>Matt Helm series, and a dozen other films of the type.
Yeah, well, Flint movies never had Bond's sky high budget.
>The budget went up again with TSWLM and MR, giving back more epic
>sweep, but then went down again with FYEO, which is another reimagining
>of the Bond universe. Less spoofy, cheaper. But the spoofy came back
>more in OP and even more in AVTAK (which I find the low point in the
>series).
I'm not going to rank OP among the spoofier of the series, despite the
circus-like atmosphere. AVTAK has so many problems that... Are you sure
it's a spoof? I can't tell.
>DAF, to me, represents a response to the challenge of continuing to
>make Bond relevant in a world that was no longer spy-obsessed, where
>the grosses would be smaller but still substantial. I don't like the
>choice they made, but it was successful.
>Interestingly, this very choice made Connery unattractive for the part
>because they couldn't continue to shell out the kind of $ and make it
>still work.
He wasn't coming back again.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
The eras I'd put the Bond films have to do with budgets and the tech
people in the series for the most part:
1) We don't have money, but we have a great team.
DN
FRWL
GF (yes, agreed, spoofy elements added here)
2) Damn the torpedoes, spend everything you have.
TB
YOLT
OHMSS
3) Well, that didn't work, and the spy era is over, and we're losing
Harry Saltzman and we've lost Peter Hunt. Let's scale back and see
what we can do.
DAF
LALD
MWTGG
4) Wow, MWTGG nearly sunk the series. Let's bring back some money now
that UA is half owner and Saltzman is out.
TSWLM
MR
5) That spoofy quality isn't working, and Michael Cimino damn near sunk
UA... whoops, he DID sink UA. Let's cut back budgets and go for what
we can.
FYEO
OP
AVTAK
6) Well, we got spoofy again, and Moore is too old. We didn't get
Brosnan to continue doing spoofy stuff, so what the hell can we do with
Dalton?
TLD
7) We just saw Die Hard, which was a reaction to the Disco Bond, oh, my
pants have lost their crease Moore era. The hero gets mussed up. And
that made a lot of money. Cool! Oh, and we lost John Barry because
a-ha pissed him off and he's sick.
LTK
8) Well, MGM now owns UA because of Michael Cimino, and they don't like
Dalton. Let's waste years in a series of lawsuits while nothing gets
resolved.
---NOTHING FOR YEARS---
9) MGM convinces Dalton to bow out, Brosnan comes in, now fitfully aged
into the part, and with acting chops to help him. Too bad we can't
find good material for him. Let's compromise by making a series of
films that start out like Fleming, with lots of promise, and then
devolve into a steaming pile of dung by the last reel. That will be
cool!
GE
TND
TWINE
DAD
10) Damn! We didn't like Brosnan because he was too much like Connery
and wanted a say in how the movies were made. Let's get rid of him.
Oh, and those Jason Bourne movies are making lots of money. Let's hire
an actor who looks like Matt Damon but is more British and then make
movies like that. Shaky-cam is cool. Let's forget Peter Hunt's rule
that action sequences longer than 5 minutes are boring. If we cut them
fast enough then we can have 30 minute action sequences that make no
sense but look cool! AWESOME.
CR
QOS
I realize that some of these are generalizations but all mark a break
in the films. I also note that TLD and LTK are in caterogies by
themselves, which is probably not fair, but they are vastly different
movies. TLD is marked by the team's indecision about how to treat
Dalton, and LTK is marked by a decision to return to Fleming but to do
more Die Hard stuff.
You could argue that OHMSS marks a return to the serious tone of the
earlier era, but it's still a Peter Hunt/Richard Maibaum/John Barry
piece. In many ways, YOLT is the film that stands out as an anomaly,
since it's a one-off by Roald Dahl, who just plain didn't "get" the
idea of making a Bond film.
I agree with Adam that sometimes it's hard to tell the budget of a film
by the location shooting, but you can always tell by the sets.
YOLT and MR are clearly the most expensive films in the series (and I'd
bet if we corrected for inflation YOLT would still win). A huge
interior set with working tramways and such. Not cheap. Hundreds of
extras.
Compare this to MWTGG, which is probably the cheapest film in the
series. A lot of location work, but really only a few big sets, and
many of those are skimpy (big empty studios with a few rigs in them).
The climactic explosion in the lab looks to me like a
forced-perspective set (where they make a set that looks bigger than it
actually is by making the ceilings and floors slant toward each other).
I'm probably too hard on the Brosnan films, but I found them uniformly
disappointing. DAD was just flat out bad toward the end.
I'm probably too hard on CR and QOS but I really get tired of overly
flashy filmmaking masking lack of content.
I found myself entranced by the long tense dialogue scenes in the
latest Tarantino epic. I began to wish that a technical script like CR
had been tackled by Tarantino as he'd asked earlier on. I liked the
midsection of CR but the beginning and end were too non-Fleming and
drawn-out for me. If they'd fleshed out the sections of the novel and
really made it work in an old-fashioned sense, it might have worked.
And don't tell me modern audience won't sit though a dialogue-heavy
film. Inglourious Basterds made a ton of money. No shaky-cam, no
spastic editing, and lovely real 'Scope cinematography.
Bond producers, please note above. The formula from the old days still
works if you do it right.
Eric
rincewind
> Eric Grayson <filmspamawaye...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >The budget went up again with TSWLM and MR, giving back more epic
> >sweep, but then went down again with FYEO, which is another reimagining
> >of the Bond universe. Less spoofy, cheaper. But the spoofy came back
> >more in OP and even more in AVTAK (which I find the low point in the
> >series).
>
> I'm not going to rank OP among the spoofier of the series, despite the
> circus-like atmosphere. AVTAK has so many problems that... Are you sure
> it's a spoof? I can't tell.
I've always felt that OP is a strange film. As long as Bond thinks
he's chasing the Fabrege eggs, he doesn't take the mission seriously
and the film doesn't take itself seriously. Once he realizes the real
mission involves a nuclear bomb threat on a US Military base, the film
seems to calm down a little and get more serious. (Even the circus
sequence, who's more "invisable" in a circus than a clown? 'Though I
would wonder WHY Bond dresses exactly as the same clown that gets
killed in the opening sequence!)
Duggy
> (Even the circus
> sequence, who's more "invisable" in a circus than a clown? 'Though I
> would wonder WHY Bond dresses exactly as the same clown that gets
> killed in the opening sequence!)
So anyone who's seen promo shots of Moore in the clown make-up thinks
they've killed Bond in the openning moments?
===
= DUG.
===
rincewind
Ah, stupidity. (on the filmmakers part, not yours) I see. Thank you.
Adam H. Kerman
James Bond has been killed in pre-credit sequence in prior movies, going
all the way back to FRWL. The audience isn't supposed to believe it.
I wonder if they'll do this in the next movie.
rincewind
um, I remember the sequence in FRWL, where else has it been done?
Adam H. Kerman
YOLT, TMWTGG
Duggy
> um, I remember the sequence in FRWL, where else has it been done?
Come on, that's an easy one.
YOLT.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> YOLT, TMWTGG
Makes you think that Bond should have been "killed" in the beginning
of DAD before he turned out to be a POW.
===
= DUG.
===
rincewind
Actually, I was thinking of YOLT, I don't remember the death in
TMWTGG.
I'd forgotten FRWL and shouldn't have used that reference.
(Which is funny because I just finished playing the PlayStation 2
game... I hated that sequence in the lawn maze!)
Adam H. Kerman
>On Jan 7, 10:12 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>I wonder if they'll do this in the next movie.
>>>um, I remember the sequence in FRWL, where else has it been done?
>>YOLT, TMWTGG
>Actually, I was thinking of YOLT, I don't remember the death in
>TMWTGG.
>I'd forgotten FRWL and shouldn't have used that reference.
Scaramanga was practicing for his eventual battle with Bond, requiring
someone wearing Roger Moore's face but no skills, the Mob hitman. But then,
the novel reprises much of FRWL so it's no surprise.
Or was he practicing and Tattoo had set up a cardboard Roger Moore, which
the movie viewer is unable to tell that Bond's not dead because Moore's
performance in much of the movie is a bit stiff? Yes, that's mean.
rincewind
Yes it is. I remember the sequence now, the mob hitman (who, BTW was
also in DAF) gets killed and Scaramanga (Japanese for "ripped comic
book?") after bantering with Tattoo, brings up the lights on a wax
Roger Moore and shoots off his fingers.
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Which leads to a refrigerator logic moment; exactly how fast can Bond
swap clothing with the wax dummy and isn't it lucky for him Scaramanga
left a loaded Walther PPK in the dummy's hands?