James Bond The Living Daylights

holmes posted on Nov 25, 2008 at 09:09PM
I'm sitting here typing, while I re-aquaint myself with Timothy Dalton and "The Living Daylights" and I'm thinking that this movie is really quite good. He's good. Looks good; the suit, the hair, the clothes, the face....all good. Acting,....goood! Bond babe...beautiful,...strong, but vulnerable. Gadgets,....great.

This movie has it all. Everything that the previous movies had. The excitment is there. I feel....that feeling. BOND! Savin' the world. Killing the bad guys. Gettin' it done!

So why do I recall alot of pessimism when it came out? Was it because we had grown accustomed to Roger Moore? It had been FOURTEEN years. More than most marriages last. Or were we just not given enough time.....to wipe our minds slate clean? After all, Pierce Brosnan didnt make a showing until after SIX years. Six years of Bond-less-ness....sad. Six YEARS of darkness. Who wouldnt love to see him in our sights?

But Timothy; he had, well basically picked up the crown/gun in the usual time line. Every other year. 1985 was Roger Moore's last and 1987 was Timothy's first.
Guess I just wanted to say, I dont think he deserved the bad wrap he got. This is GOOD. What do you think?
last edited on Nov 25, 2008 at 09:13PM
save

James Bond 10 balasa

Click here to write a response...
lebih dari setahun yang lalu cattleman said…
I prefer Dalton to Brosnan anyday. Brosnan's just seemed like an extra kitchy (sp?) Roger Moore
lebih dari setahun yang lalu yaz said…
Early Brosnan was just a bit too pretty for me. I think there's an unwritten rule: "Never be prettier than the Bond Babe" By the later years I had warmed up.
Maybe its true, holmes, folks needed time to warm up. Youve given me a project over Thanksgiving. Watch Dalton!
lebih dari setahun yang lalu salemslot said…
Haha,yaz!I loved Timothy in both movies but what I remember was that the fans were annoyed that the producers didn't pick Sam Neil!My God!
lebih dari setahun yang lalu yaz said…
Sam Neil?!!!!! YIKES!
lebih dari setahun yang lalu Quiztzhadrch said…
I think the movie was good too, however Timothy just lacked one thing that set him apart from the other Bonds (except Lazenby, he didnt develop enough) and it was his inability to.... smile! Bond, as a character, was up to that point a suave, worldly charmer. Timothy was more what Craig's bond is like now; grittier, cynical and businesslike. Bond fans just werent ready for that change just yet. Now they are and that's why Craig's bond is so successful. So, you're right: Timothy's Bond came at a bad time. And, hey, salemslot: Sam Neil huh? Well, disaster averted!
lebih dari setahun yang lalu holmes said…
Quiztzhadrch; Wow, I think you nailed it. Bond NEVER smiled.Well, not never, and when he did...it really wasnt that broad band of "dazzle", or an "ah shucks, its just my boyish charm"... Yes, more business and grit, at least in one, more than the other. License to Kill . I saw softness in him concerning Bond Babe in The Living Daylights.......Youve explained it beautifully. And Yes, Sam Neil?...disaster averted!
lebih dari setahun yang lalu yaz said…
Theyve been showing Casino Royale on tv recently.(here in the USA) and OOOOUCH! That torture scene was a little rough! Talk about gritty! I thought for sure they would omit some of it. But a good one none the less! Just rented the latest, Quantum, Not bad but I felt like the whole movie was a giant chase.
lebih dari setahun yang lalu mandali said…
smile
Timothy Dalton is Amazing and Looks like a God..But my favourite James Bond is Sean Connery.
last edited lebih dari setahun yang lalu
lebih dari setahun yang lalu yaz said…
Yes, I think most would agree with you, Mandali!
lebih dari setahun yang lalu DR76 said…
"THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS" is my third favorite James Bond movie of all time.

As for Dalton's lack of ability to smile . . . who cares? It was not his style and I would have preferred if he stuck to his way of portraying Bond.