So I saw License to Kill and Living Daylights

[TehMac]

I love action and James Bondish movies, and obviously, I like James Bond, if only because some of the chicks they dig up are amazingly sexay.
So these two movies had Timothey Dalton, and he looks good as James in stills, but hell, he's rather...un Bondish in the films. He seems too un-badass to be James, and yet too unrefined to be James as well. License to Kill was one of my least favorite movies. It was exceedingly gory, for a James Bond movie, which was kinda a good thing I imagine, but I mean they really went over the top. I felt like puking when *spoilers(?)* The villain rapidly unpressurized the cabin and the guy's head exploded...maybe I have a heightened imagination that more keenly fills in the blanks than others, but that's not an isolated incident.*End Spoilers(?)* The only chick that was hawt was that Latino chick, I HATE the looks short haired chicks, and that other chick wasn't really cute either. The movie just felt so late '80's and early '90's. Which is not a good thing imo.
The Living Daylights was pretty good, the French (or Italian?) babe in it was hawt hawt, and then I think you had a Russian in there, it was alright. The Living Daylights felt more like a classic, but still...I just don't think Timothey Dalton had what it was to be a Bond classic.

So my ranking:

Sean Connery
Roger Moore (he's suave, lady catcher and about as old as Sean Connery)
Pierce Brosnan/Daniel Craig: They're tied right now imo, they have starred in some awesome movies, I felt Casino Royale was a classic, but not an extreme one, because James Bond fell in love...he never does that--the production tried to put too much feeling in Casino Royale, I felt. But still an awesome movie.

So what do you think?

 

[NatePo717]

I agree with your rankings. But there's a good bit of space between Connery and Moore.

 

[TehMac]

Yeah, definitely, but I felt Moore was able to pick up the snarky and classic remarks that Pierce only partially was able to do.

 

[Slick5150]

You forgot to rank George Lazenby somewhere

 

[TehMac]

Eh, I didn't feel ranking him, because I haven't seen his movie, and he was featured only once, so he was rather a substitute than anything else.

 

[So]

I agree wholeheartedly with you opinion. IIRC, Daylights was written with Roger Moore in mind (he kept threatening to retire before each 80's movie, but they kept enticing him back with more $$) and he finally retired. Dalton was an alternate choice. I believe they already wanted Brosnan, but he was under contract for Remington Steele. Anyway -- License was actually written with Dalton in mind, and I think that's what makes it a poorer film.

 

[TehMac]

Yeah, I could definitely see where Dalton was making some witty comments in License, but they just didn't feel all that witty. And the gore in the film really took away from the light headed atmosphere. It seemed they were trying to make a breakthrough with James Bond taking an opposite direction. I mean it was just gruesome and terrible, but it really didn't add to the plot. It's like, "oh his head exploded because he was shoved into a rapidly depressurized cabin, nice (I feel like puking), oh, he got devoured by a shark...but in the end, none of it really added.

In The Spy who Loved Me, you had Roger Moore + Sexy babes. Ringo Starr's wife is soooooooooo hawt in that one. Plus, you had a guy who really didn't want to be messed with, and you felt more like he was a menace. This guy was just...I don't know, not so good a film, License.

And you're right about the issues with Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

 

[thomsbrain]

based on the how closely they mirror the books' character:

Daniel Craig
Timothy Dalton
Sean Connery
Pierce Brosman
Roger Moore

Let the flaming commence.

That isn't necessarily a comment on which movies most closely mirror the tone of the books, just actors. It's also not a comment on which actors are the most enjoyable to watch.

 

[TehMac]

lol, meh, I wouldn't get heated up over an opinion about Actors, but I haven't read the books, so it's hard for me to dispute that opinion. However, It seems Daniel Craig is hard to dispute, because he is badass, but it seems that he's more rough hewn. The way his character is, he's all buff, and while the James Bonds were definitely strong, they weren't frickin body builders. But he is a good actor...he just doesn't seem all that suave, like the others. But when he is suave (At the end of Caisno Royale..."Bond...James Bond," He is a total baddass + suave dude.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You forgot to rank George Lazenby somewhere

Because he shouldn't rank on anyone's list.

Also, OP, in the Lazenby film Bond gets married, so falling in love in the Dalton film is no big issue.

No spoiler warning because the film is almost 40 years old.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: TehMac
lol, meh, I wouldn't get heated up over an opinion about Actors, but I haven't read the books, so it's hard for me to dispute that opinion. However, It seems Daniel Craig is hard to dispute, because he is badass, but it seems that he's more rough hewn. The way his character is, he's all buff, and while the James Bonds were definitely strong, they weren't frickin body builders. But he is a good actor...he just doesn't seem all that suave, like the others. But when he is suave (At the end of Caisno Royale..."Bond...James Bond," He is a total baddass + suave dude.

Casino Royale is supposed to show him just getting started, before he reached his peak of sophistication.

 

[TehMac]

You mean Daniel Craig, Dalton doesn't really fall in love. But the chicks in his films are just not hawt. The Latino chick is hawt hawt I think.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TehMac
lol, meh, I wouldn't get heated up over an opinion about Actors, but I haven't read the books, so it's hard for me to dispute that opinion. However, It seems Daniel Craig is hard to dispute, because he is badass, but it seems that he's more rough hewn. The way his character is, he's all buff, and while the James Bonds were definitely strong, they weren't frickin body builders. But he is a good actor...he just doesn't seem all that suave, like the others. But when he is suave (At the end of Caisno Royale..."Bond...James Bond," He is a total baddass + suave dude.

Casino Royale is supposed to show him just getting started, before he reached his peak of sophistication.

Touche, I guess that's a good point, I didn't really consider that.