The Living Daylights premiered 25 years ago today.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Yes, GE does spray the estrogen around pretty good.

Sprinkle in TND too with the Paris Carver affair.

Nah, that comes off as entirely false. About as convincing as Bond and Vesp in CR.

Largo's Shark wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Yes, GE does spray the estrogen around pretty good.

Sprinkle in TND too with the Paris Carver affair.

Nah, that comes off as entirely false. About as convincing as Bond and Vesp in CR.

Yikes! that's harsh. But I defer, like I said, I'm more impressed with Bond and Dink, than any of the non-Tracy faux-romances.

I concur on Bond and Paris. Their fling is all too brief--in actual footage time--to build up any sort of a convincing romance. I mean, she's toast within the first quarter of the film. Not to mention that Hatcher is a rather weak actress.

Bond and Vesper, however, is another animal. While I can agree that Vesper's transition from frosty to infatuated is a bit jarring, I find the portrayal of their romance following the transition to be convincing. The air of tragedy is palpable and affecting, IMO.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

That may be a reason TND's PTS is my favorite of the Brosnan-era PTSs.

Wait, why are we talking about TND? How dare you talk about TND in this thread!!

Uh, take it up with Perilagu. We were discussing how TND's PTS was inspired by the Afghan scenes in TLD.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I agree that TLD is the most romantic Bond film of them all. Even moreso than OHMSS.

Speaking of, I absolutely agree. It helps that Kara doesn't disappear from the film for an hour while Bond helps himself to an "Angels of Death" type femme squad.

tiffanywint wrote:

Yikes! that's harsh. But I defer, like I said, I'm more impressed with Bond and Dink, than any of the non-Tracy faux-romances.

What about Bond and the blond Russian spy in the TSWLM PTS, timmer?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I concur on Bond and Paris. Their fling is all too brief--in actual footage time--to build up any sort of a convincing romance. I mean, she's toast within the first quarter of the film. Not to mention that Hatcher is a rather weak actress.

In fairness, is Brosnan that strong of an actor? I never disliked Miss Hatcher's turn as Paris but then again I wasn't expecting a Diana Rigg-style performance from her. I was expecting a Lana Wood-style performance and wasnt' disappointed.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Bond and Vesper, however, is another animal. While I can agree that Vesper's transition from frosty to infatuated is a bit jarring, I find the portrayal of their romance following the transition to be convincing. The air of tragedy is palpable and affecting, IMO.

It's not bad and Craig did a good job with Vesper's death scene. Still, Bond/Vesper are not as effective as Bond/Kara in TLD or Bond/Tracy in OHMSS for me. For that matter, I found Bond/Solange in CR more believable.

tiffanywint wrote:

Le Chiffre pulled the same stunt in CR. He tried to do a stock scam with money that had been entrusted with him for safe-keeping and safe investment.

The core of Koskov's plan is pretty much Le Chiffre's plan. I'm sure Maibaum & Wilson deliberately lifted that from Fleming. In the early stages of writing, there was talk of adapting CR for Dalton's debut.

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

Uh, take it up with Perilagu. We were discussing how TND's PTS was inspired by the Afghan scenes in TLD.

I was just having a laugh. =)

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

If there is a turning point, it is the staged assassination of Pushkin. The entire point of that plan was to trick Koskov into showing his hand. He acquires the diamonds and trades them for raw opium, which he intends to sell on the street to replace the laundered funds.

I suppose that is a turning point, yes, but it comes from Bond.

I think the film needed a very solid, dramatic "point of no return" for the plot to hang on. Instigated by Koskov. Can you name any moment in the film where you sit up and say, "wow, what villainy!" Koskov's plan - and so the plot - chugs along with little drama. I think Koskov & Bond's conversation on the plane (where Bond is handcuffed) comes pretty close to that eureka moment, what one might call a "mint julep" moment (so named after the Goldfinger scene where Bond has said drink while Goldfinger reveals the genius of his plan - not stealing Fort Knox's gold, but rather wrecking it).

Then again, I have always seen TLD as more a film about Bond than as a film about a plot or villain. Unlike Goldfinger, for instance.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The film is very clever in that it doesn't really give Bond or the audience a reason to suspect Koskov's duplicity until Pushkin convinces Bond that that he has no knowledge of Smiert Spionam.

I don't know, Koskov's behaviour at the safehouse briefing is ropey enough to arouse suspicion in Bond, and so, by extension, I'd say the audience. We're invited to identify with Bond's instincts regarding Pushkin's innocence.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The film would have worked better if Walter Gotell was well enough to play Anatoly Gogol in Pushkin's place, since Gogol was established as an occasional ally, and it would have resonated more with the audience if he was presented as have reverted to an enemy.

I don't agree there. If anything, Gogol would have been even less believable as a possible enemy than Pushkin. Gogol was hardly an enemy all those years, so I don't think audiences would buy into it suddenly. He'd just given Bond the Order of Lenin in AVTAK, after all!

Quote :

In fairness, is Brosnan that strong of an actor?

Light years ahead of Teri Hatcher at least.

tiffanywint wrote:

Isn't the whole thing just about Koskov and Whitaker, "borrowing" Soviet money which was intended for arms purchases, but instead buying opium and re-selling the drugs for a huge profit. There is no laundering going on here but rather a misappropriation of government money intended for arms purchases.

If I remember rightly, Pushkin's dialogue makes it pretty clear that Moscow did not approve of Whittaker as a supplier. He was polite to Whittaker because he has no evidence that Whittaker is aware that Koskov was not supposed to be dealing with him (and probably because he's angling for Whittaker to slip up and further incimrinate Koskov).

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Then again, I have always seen TLD as more a film about Bond than as a film about a plot or villain. Unlike Goldfinger, for instance.

I think TLD has a very strong plot. It was very refreshing after the tired. tick-the-box, hyper-formulaic recycling of GF we got in AVTAK's plot.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

In fairness, is Brosnan that strong of an actor?

Light years ahead of Teri Hatcher at least.

Seen TWINE? It definitely features the weakest performance by a lead Bond actor IMHO.

Back on the main topic, start this video at 6:05 to see a then-current promo for Dalton and TLD:

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

In fairness, is Brosnan that strong of an actor?

Light years ahead of Teri Hatcher at least.

Seen TWINE?

Seen THE MATADOR, THE TAILOR OF PANAMA or EVELYN?

Brozzer is a decent actor. I particulary liked his work in Mama Mia. He just wasn't terribly convincing as Bond. Not bad mind you. Passable even, but Sean did set that bar pretty damn high, and poor Piercy was just kinda left to jump at it, only occasionally getting a loose grip. He did, I think, manage to hang on and swing a bit, during parts of DAD, GE too, even TND, a little bit here and there in TWINE, but he just couldn't seem to hang on for extended stretches. Such is Bond. It's a demanding role.

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Yikes! that's harsh. But I defer, like I said, I'm more impressed with Bond and Dink, than any of the non-Tracy faux-romances.

What about Bond and the blond Russian spy in the TSWLM PTS, timmer?

There is really no comparison. Log-cabin Girl was an enemy agent that Bond was dallying with -- a femme fatale. Dink on the other hand was a healthy romantic diversion for the young Bond, on vacation in Miami.

Connery knew the score, Lazenby did the dialogue and the character became him, Moore played a variant of himself, but Dalton felt the character, he felt the way through the part and reasoned out Bond's personal motivations and past history. Then he sells you with his sheer conviction.

Hard to believe that TLD is 25. The last great Bond film, and in many respects the last Bond film period. Why do I say this?
Because ever since 1987 they have tried to update or change the Bond film entirely. TLD is almost a goodbye to the series, not to mention the Cold War. Dalton gives one of the great screen performances, and I do not say this lightly. His take on Bond is so chock full of little quirks and idiosyncrasies that if James Bond actually existed in the modern world it would almost have to be Dalton. You can believe that this is a hard man full of old wounds long pushed aside. You can believe this is a man who carries a licence to kill. You can believe that this is an assassin, a weary traveler, an outsider, a man with his own opinion. This is a part of Fleming that typically get lost in the films, and something which I don't even think the producers realized the extent of which Dalton was putting it back.

The score, Barry's last for the series, is one of his best ever works. Fantastic, and I play both my expanded CD and LP regularly still.
John Glen's direction is spot on, and never drags for the first time. The cinematography is inspiring while maintaining the desired realism.
That realism is what makes the film. It is a Bond movie that takes place in 1987 Earth instead of Bond-world as is the stereotype. The story and villains may not seem to be standard Bond fare, but this is what gives the film life beyond, because it is all plausible it becomes far more interesting and real to the audience.
Kara is a different sort of Bond girl who inspires a deal of admiration, because she is just a normal person thrust into things way beyond her comprehension.

The most underrated Bond, because none of the public really know of it, and at least OHMSS has gained some fans.

LTK should have been better. To have such a fine actor giving it his all and be surrounded by a lackluster script...ugh.

I will admit that Leiter in the film is incredibly dull, but then again so are most real life agents in the field. Paperwork is the real M.

TLD is the only Bond that can stand up against the first 10 and only gets better with age.

hegottheboot wrote:

Connery knew the score, Lazenby did the dialogue and the character became him, Moore played a variant of himself, but Dalton felt the character, he felt the way through the part and reasoned out Bond's personal motivations and past history. Then he sells you with his sheer conviction.

Hard to believe that TLD is 25. The last great Bond film, and in many respects the last Bond film period. Why do I say this?
Because ever since 1987 they have tried to update or change the Bond film entirely. TLD is almost a goodbye to the series, not to mention the Cold War. Dalton gives one of the great screen performances, and I do not say this lightly. His take on Bond is so chock full of little quirks and idiosyncrasies that if James Bond actually existed in the modern world it would almost have to be Dalton. You can believe that this is a hard man full of old wounds long pushed aside. You can believe this is a man who carries a licence to kill. You can believe that this is an assassin, a weary traveler, an outsider, a man with his own opinion. This is a part of Fleming that typically get lost in the films, and something which I don't even think the producers realized the extent of which Dalton was putting it back.

The score, Barry's last for the series, is one of his best ever works. Fantastic, and I play both my expanded CD and LP regularly still.
John Glen's direction is spot on, and never drags for the first time. The cinematography is inspiring while maintaining the desired realism.
That realism is what makes the film. It is a Bond movie that takes place in 1987 Earth instead of Bond-world as is the stereotype. The story and villains may not seem to be standard Bond fare, but this is what gives the film life beyond, because it is all plausible it becomes far more interesting and real to the audience.
Kara is a different sort of Bond girl who inspires a deal of admiration, because she is just a normal person thrust into things way beyond her comprehension.

The most underrated Bond, because none of the public really know of it, and at least OHMSS has gained some fans.

LTK should have been better. To have such a fine actor giving it his all and be surrounded by a lackluster script...ugh.

I will admit that Leiter in the film is incredibly dull, but then again so are most real life agents in the field. Paperwork is the real M.

TLD is the only Bond that can stand up against the first 10 and only gets better with age.

Great analysis. This bit is Dalton to a tee.

Quote :

but Dalton felt the character, he felt the way through the part and reasoned out Bond's personal motivations and past history. Then he sells you with his sheer conviction.

TLD has grown on me. I watched it the other day to complete my films 11-22 Bondathon. What a great film to end on. It is pretty much flawless.

I've only resisted it over the years because its not what I really want from Bond-cinema. My fear is that if producers get too pleased with films like TLD, then they might toss out the more escapist fare. I don't want Bond to ever lose touch with films like GF or YOLT (full-out Spectre world-domination and super-lair, but done "seriously", as opposed to Flint like). But with the benefit of time, TLD has taken its place as one of the great Bonds. I also think the public relates more to the Connery persona than what Dalton was trying to do. I can relate to both though, as Dalts did such a good job, but I much prefer the Connery swagger.

Dalts had some great lines in TLD. He delivered the quips with relish. His Bond was not without humour.

The key difference I think between Connery and Dalts is that Sean was pure alpha Bond. He impacted and drove the narrative. I don't know that Dalt-Bond would have ambushed the widow Bouvar, in the TB pts, with the same relish and authority that Sean-Bond did, or "ask',actually demand, of Marie, that there was something he'd "like to get off her chest." Dalts Bond seemed more effected by events. Sean could be a real bastard, an agreeable bastard mind-you, and it worked to a tee. Dalts brought a different take though, but did a damn fine job with it too.

TLD is deservedly considered I think to be one of the great Bond films.

Well-written post Louis Armstrong. The Living Daylights is my number 3 and my favourite since the 60's. I consider it vastly underrated by critics and the general public though. Something I do not fully understand. How could they at that time not appreciate this gem. It was clearly closer to what they all had enjoyed in 1960's. Dalton made Bond intelligent and believable. I do not understand the love for movies such as Casino Royale and the adoration of Craig's performance while they consider Dalton's efforts dull and boring. Or even worse, some of these contemporary reviews even go as far as stating that Dalton was miscast.

The first Bond film I saw (DAF) was the seventh to be released. Fifteen years later - upon the release of TLD - DAF had become the middle of the pack. Now 1987 marks the middle of EON's history, with MR in the middle of the pack.

I sure hope I live to see the day when Skyfall marks the middle of the series.

Another 50 years--cake n' pie.

hegottheboot wrote:

You can believe that this is a hard man full of old wounds long pushed aside. You can believe this is a man who carries a licence to kill. You can believe that this is an assassin, a weary traveler, an outsider, a man with his own opinion. This is a part of Fleming that typically get lost in the films, and something which I don't even think the producers realized the extent of which Dalton was putting it back.

Well-said!

tiffanywint wrote:

The key difference I think between Connery and Dalts is that Sean was pure alpha Bond. He impacted and drove the narrative. I don't know that Dalt-Bond would have ambushed the widow Bouvar, in the TB pts, with the same relish and authority that Sean-Bond did, or "ask',actually demand, of Marie, that there was something he'd "like to get off her chest." Dalts Bond seemed more effected by events. Sean could be a real bastard, an agreeable bastard mind-you, and it worked to a tee. Dalts brought a different take though, but did a damn fine job with it too.

Interesting take. Connery was definitely more alpha, in the sense that he exuded masculine sexuality. Along with his more aggressive brawler persona. In contrast, Dalton was more of a romantic and more of an introvert.

But one of the things I find most notable about the Dalton films in their resemblance to the Young/Connery outings is that they do bring back the focused, driven Bond. Much of TLD's plot advances on Bond's actions, LTK's even more so (LTK might be the one story most driven by Bond's actions). I don't think Dalton was so much "effected" by events... he doesn't live in the sort of Bond world that Gilbert created where Things Just Happen Around Bond for two hours. Certainly, Dalton reacts to events more than previous Bonds - particularly emotionally. In that way, perhaps one could say instead that he was "affected" by events. :)

Yes "affected" by events. Yes both Connery and Dalts were focused and driven Bonds. They were men on a mission. Dalts however seemed a little more bothered by the mission, in that it was something he had to do, so he did it and did it well. Connery was a little more disaffected and actually seemed to enjoy busting heads to get the job done, which I think helps to explain his popularity with audiences. He was larger than life. Dalts portrayal of Agent 007 was maybe a little more realistic, a little more grounded. Both approaches work but I think the Connery approach has a broader appeal. Bond movies, for the most post are male escapist fantasy adventures.

Personally I don't care about realism in my Bond. The less real the better. Camp is good, but it's got to be dark camp like DAF, not like Flint. Flint works, but it works as entertaining farce. It doesn't aspire to be anything else. Bond camp works only when the actor plays it straight. There can't be any wink wink, which is why Sean was so brilliant, because he could play YOLT and second half of DN straight. He brought real gravitas and danger to frankly ridiculous and very unrealistic scenarios. If he'd played it wink wink, it becomes like Flint, and doesn't work. Rog tried to play straight but he couldn't quite pull it off like Sean did. Sean's a better actor though, so he was able to hold the Bond character together, while firing cigarette-darts at henchmen, whilst captured inside Blofeld's volcano rocket-base.

Sad part about the Craig era, is Craig can play Bond like Sean, but he seems to insist on only quasi-realistic character-driven narratives. Too bad,as Craig could pull off the Spectre volcano too, and keep it real.