Only 2 choices here.
I for one enjoyed the more serious portrayal of the character in the 2 Dalton movies, but I’m aware I may be in the minority.
I liked Dalton as well. It is too bad that he didn’t get more than 2 films but I guess some people thought he was too big a change from Moore.
I’m sorry but asking which Dalton movie was the best is like asking which finger nail would hurt the least if it was torn off.
They both sucked. Hell, I preferred Moore to Dalton!
+1
He was much better than he got credit for.
I don’t remember which was which. Dalton is a good actor, but his Bond was not memorable.
Just rewatched Living Daylights for the first time in 20 years and found it held up pretty well, and much better than the Moore ones. It was kind of odd seeing it now post-Craig Bond, though… juxtaposition of Craig’s serious Bond (though not quite as world-weary) with the completely over the top action sequences that were Bond staples of the 80’s.
Chased down a mountain by skiing gunmen while sledding on a cello case? And having the cello somehow take a bullet for you? Awesome!!
A tough choice; I went with The Living Daylights purely for the theme song, which is one of my favorites in the series.
License to Kill is my favorite of the pre Craig films. I also think Dalton’s Bond was the best of the earlier films.
I liked Dalton in the role; he deserved better movies than the two he got. Cute new Moneypenny, though.
There’s something about it that never quite added up to me. It starts with General Koskov defecting to the west, although we learn later that he’s only staged the defection as part of a larger plan. He had his girlfriend, Kara, pretend to be a sniper to make the defection look real, but to not put him in any actual danger. Bond instinctively recognizes that she’s not a real sniper, and only shoots the rifle out of her hands instead of killing her. And that sets the plot in motion of Bond using Kara to eventually lead him to Koskov.
So how, exactly, do you get your girlfriend to pretend to be a sniper? She wasn’t in on the whole plot, but what do you tell someone to get them to play along with that? “Honey, could you do me a small favor…”
Yeah but she was cute, so there was that.
Living Daylights was my favorite, I don’t remember Licence to Kill so well.
You convince her the bullets are blanks?
“Pretend to kill me, I defect, I send for you later, we spend the rest of our lives in the decadent West making babies.”
“You’re defecting, I get that part. Why do you need me to point a gun at you when you do it; do you expect someone to be watching?”
"Yes, my little cupcake. I always have escorts. All of us Generals have these. One of them is “in” on the plot with me. Once I am in the ambulance, we head for the border. By the time the proper authorities realise I am not dead, I’ll be in Austria.
Meanwhile, you return to your dressing room. No one would suspect you. I’ll send for you once I make contact with the British."
“Oh, you know I can’t say ‘no’ to you when you call me cupcake.”
I still think it’s a hard sell. “I just want the other spies to think you’re a ruthless, cold-blooded assassin sent to eliminate me before I can make contact with them, but you’re in no danger.”
True, but I don’t think she was portrayed as being all that bright in the first place.
+1
It’s a far more grounded film set around a somewhat plausible story than many of it’s predecessors (and successors).
The Living Daylights is good, but it’s nothing compared to License to Kill.
Heck, that might be the all-time best bond movie, period. It’s perfect because it’s simulataneously a Bond film, and not. The basic plot is mroe aof a revenge flick, but it’s done in the inimical Bond style - he doesn’t break character to do it, and Dalton completely sells the scheming and planning needed to take down the villain. The other interesting aspect is that here Bond is the proactive character, more or less.
In most Bond films, he’s a reactive character. The bad guys are up to something and he intends to stop it, possible in several ways en route o the big showdown at which he stops their evil plans. In a way, License to Kill kinda this, but here Bond isn’t out to stop a plan, but specifically to hunt the villain. It’s a unique dynamic. Q makes a surprising appearance, and along the way Bond does some things you might not have expected from him.
In fact, every aspect of this movie pushes what was possible in the Bond formula. The villain isn’t scheming for world domination - but he’s interesting, cunning, and very dangerous. The adventure is a lot more grounded than previousn outings, but still recognizably Bond.
It’s a shame that it didn’t get to continue… unless you count Craig’s Bond, because Casino Royale sets up almost the exact same dynamic! A serious, non-winking Bond who wins by thinking more than gadgets or charm, who has a very specific enemy in mind and goes after him like some kind of evil-targeting missle.
Dalton read the Bond books and decided to portray James Bond as a serious character. His portrayal of Bond was better than Moore’s smirk, and his age didn’t require any suspension of disbelief for the stunts. By time Moore finished with the role he was over 60. The problem with Dalton’s films was the writing and direction. The stories were a continuation of the assembly line formulaic Bond films that Roger Moore starred in.
License to Kill is almost not a Bond movie, though it may well be a Bond story. Until they introduced the Daniel Craig version of Bond, this was the only truly gritty, truly bad-ass Bond performance. It’s too bad it was played by Timothy Dalton, who, frankly, never had what it takes to be a good Bond, if for no other reason than his size, IMHO.