MovieChat Forums > The Living Daylights (1987) Discussion > Dalton was simply awful

Dalton was simply awful

posted 13 years ago by IndianaDoctor
56 replies | jump to latest

I've heard a lot of praise for Dalton for Bond, but I found is performance very plain. He was just too dark, now okay Roger Moore's Bond got to jokey, if you get my drift but his films was very entertaining. Dalton was simply boring, as we've all heard the production for Living Daylights wanted Prosnan, also Prosnan wanted to be bond. However Remington Steel squashed any hopes for Bond, so they went for second choice Dalton ,too serious & too boring. I've got nothing against Dalton a talented actor but just doesn't suit the secret agent atmosphere. I just wouldn't what it would be like if Prosnan took the role early.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] manchof1 10 years ago

Him and Lazenby are at the bottom of the Bond totem pole to be honest, we didn't get to see enough of what they could do in the role and are hardly remembered as much as other Bond actors.

[–] HetaAnma 10 years ago

Lazenby is the worst by far. I like Dalton as an actor, but overall I'm indifferent to his portrayal. He didn't bring the charm of Moore or the grittiness of Connery. He was just sort of meh in the role.

[–] manchof1 10 years ago

I think he would have found some more footing in the role had he played Bond for more than just twice, it took Roger Moore and Daniel Craig three films before I could say that I like them as the character.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

Dalton does tend to be kinda wooden, overly earnest and sort of awkwardly intense a lot of the time. He's also simply too nice a guy, lacking the callously thuggish, selfishly hedonistic, borderline sociopathic side that ideally gives Bond a welcome nasty edge - a side that's successfully portrayed by Connery and Craig. He's indeed kinda boring.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] tim-stein 9 years ago

Read the original books. Dalton brought Fleming's original portrayal of Bond to life. I will always love Connery as the "best" (movie) Bond, but Dalton absolutely came closest, next to Craig, in NAILING Fleming's vision.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

I don't really care about Fleming's so-called "vision", I only care about what I see on screen and there I find Dalton somewhat wanting (although passable). But I am beginning to wonder what type of man this book Bond really was after all... because when I criticize Lazenby for being off-puttingly smug, oily and arrogant, I get told that's what Fleming's Bond was like... and when I say Dalton seems too earnest and nice, I get also told that's what Fleming's Bond was like (plus from elsewhere it would appear he certainly did have the hedonistic, callous side and a nasty streak). I mean, he couldn't possibly be all those things at once...

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] safard 9 years ago

I agree that Dalton's Bond was very boring. He did have a more serious edge to him, but I didn't feel as compelled to root for him as I did with Connery and Moore.

[–] Ida1041 9 years ago

Please, it's Brosnan, not Prosnan! I like Timothy as James Bond, because he is more serious, realistic. On the other side, Daniel Craig seems little too serious for an agent.

[–] cabbageboy316 9 years ago

I needed to see another Dalton effort to really gauge what he could do. He was bland in The Living Daylights since the script was written in a generic way for a variety of actors. He was much more the hardcore type in Licence to Kill, which is a far darker and grittier Bond tale than anything Craig has done (too dark for 1989 audiences to be honest). I wish there had been another Dalton flick in 1991-92 so he could have a trilogy and then turned the role over to Brosnan.

Dalton did feel somewhat like he was fighting the role. He was trying so hard to break away from the Moore style of Bond movie that he never had any fun. Just no way with the one liners, didn't get the chicks, no rapport with the bad guys. Say what you want about Brosnan, but when he finally was Bond in Goldeneye he hit the ground running and made everyone forget that Dalton existed, mainly because he took things fairly seriously but also was clearly having some fun out there and took the audience for a ride.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

I like it. I think dalton was excellent as Bond. Who is Prosnan?

[–] TMC-4 (20123) 2 years ago

Roger Ebert when reviewing The Living Daylights back in 1987, didn't like Timothy Dalton's portrayal of James Bond because unlike Roger Moore or even Sean Connery, he wasn't "funny enough":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhOSoqmLP5U

Gene Siskel meanwhile (who admittedly didn't care much for Roger Moore's portrayal), said that Dalton was too "mousy" and "reticent" as Bond.

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) 2 years ago

Indeed. Well said asides from the failure to name Brosnam correctly...

It is a good question to consider how good TLD may have been with Brosnan at the helm instead of Dalton. I'd still image it to be one of the weaker true Bond entries, but I'm sure it would have been more entertaining with Brosman's charm.