Never liked his Bond, just like Craig he felt more like a dark generic action character

@@pr-tj5byyeah but unlike Craig he wasn’t dark JUST BECAUSE and nothing else. His bond knew how to relax and enjoy himself but not too much like Roger did (exactly how the novel bond was like)

@@mohammedashian8094 He was certainly dark in LTK, I much prefer the Connery Moore Brosnan type fun loving cool womanising Classic Bond, I prefer to separate the screen and novel Bonds, as I said Dalton and Craig turned Bond into a generic action character like everyone else and once that happens you're no longer the cool iconic Bond that every guy wanted to be.

@@pr-tj5by that’s kinda the point of bond though. You DON’T want to be him. It’s fun and thrilling to read or watch him but you would never want to be him. It’s like you just said you separate the novel character from the movie character because they’re two completely different characters but one thing’s for sure when bond was first created he was never EVER meant to be cool or suave or a gentleman (he does have a some tender and vulnerable moments but for the most part he’s very closed off) he was a cold snobbish Son of a bitch. You’re free to be excited and love him and think he’s the coolest thing ever there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that but do remember one thing, just because you think of him as all that that I just said he’s not necessarily a good guy he does things that your moral compass would never let you do it Now you’re also free to love and enjoy Connery, Moore and brosnan for their shenanigans but don’t hold them as a standard that any future bond actor has to live up to (I know that you’re probably gonna say that you’re not trying to do that but still don’t) because they’re not BETTER they’re just different. Now I watched dalton’s movies less as an movie goer and more of a novel purist so I got more of a kick of out him than the others. Does that mean they’re bad? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Again They’re just different than what Tim was trying to do. Again back to dalton, I read every single one of them and I can say that he had moments where he was relaxing and having fun with Felix and not being dark and serious all the time but that was kept to a balance dalton did that while still having SOME fun moments but never too much or else it would’ve been a Roger Moore romp (not that he can’t do one he can he just didn’t want to) not unlike Craig who went too far with it. That’ll be all thank you for coming to my ted talk 😊

I've always loved how that scene ends with Dalton's Bond looking over the moon that he pulled off a heist of sorts, completely by happenstance, while Krest watches the plane fly away in befuddlement.

We’re NOT a country club! You can’t just hand in your resignation! You must learn to tolerate opinions unlike your own and be a good chap. 😉

a haaaa good to see you here man :) yeah so, tims accent from England in Derbyshire is very recognisable when he says ' nasty' or should i say ' nastyer' :) its slightly how people from the north of England say certain words. some people in that area can call themselves northerners or Midlander's. I went to school in Mansfield so i heard lots of people sounding like Tim. also he's classically trained as you know so certain R words really go in his pronunciation of words.

I felt that Bond had jumped the shark when Roger Moore dressed up in full clown costume; something that Fleming’s character on the page would never have done. Dalton’s Bond was at least more authentic and the idea at the heart of the movie was, I thought, really clever. It’s called Licence To Kill and we see from the outset that his licence has been revoked, which leaves us examining whether Bond is a moral crusader or just some vengeful vigilante serial killer like the Riddler in the latest The Batman movie? It’s a genuine moral dilemma which the character of Bond faces head on throughout the plot and resolves very nicely. So you have to give props to the writers for attempting to address the ethics and central issues of what Bond stands for if nothing else, right?

Totally Agree. LTK is still my favourite Bond Movie. Well ahead of its time in my opinion.

Have thought, for a long time now, that Carey Lowell could have been the first Bong Grrl to carry her own spin-off movie...

It was Dalton who refused to return as Bond, rather than not being given the chance. A writer’s strike and a legal dispute over some of the Bond material were what caused the six year delay. By the time all of that was resolved Dalton said he simply felt like he’d done that, got the T shirt and everything and had moved on, so he wanted someone else to have a chance and turned it down. But yes, he was a great Bond, regardless of what you think of the writing (though I personally preferred the new, grittier direction he was going in) and I too would have liked to have seen at least one more with him in the lead role.

tell that to the fans who never let Dalton forget they wanted Brosnan in the first place.

i agreei thought Dalton was one of the best Bond ,

Agreed! Dalton is my favorite as well!!

Yep - Dalton is my favourite too.

Dalton is my second favorite Bond actor. It's really a shame he diden't get to do a thirds Bond movie.

IIRC Dalton's third Bond film was scheduled for 1991 and would've been a different film to Goldeneye. By the time the legal issues were resolved and Goldeneye was in the works, Dalton was asked if he'd come back and play Bond. He said he would, but only for one more film. However, the producers said that he could only come back if he agreed to do several more Bond films, so he declined.

You only have to see Dalton in Hot Fuzz to know that his comedic abilities are laugh out loud top notch and woefully underused throughout his illustrious career. I too would have loved to have seen a third outing for Dalton’s Bond, as he did make the character interesting again, and helped us to forget the shark jumping moments of Moore’s Bond dressing up in full clown costume, or persuading his arch nemesis, Jaws, that we could all just get along. I think your commentary was thoughtful and underrated, for what it’s worth . . .

@@ashroskell Dalton is sort of creepy when he smiles.

I'm OK with them tweaking the Bond formula, but if you get rid of everything formulaic to Bond, why even call it a Bond movie?

A smart observation, if you don’t mind my saying so? I hadn’t much thought of that while watching this video, but yes, he is incredibly deft at comedy and his turn as the villain, in Hot Fuzz for example, is laugh out loud hilarious. His ability was never a question I feel, and he certainly put his own mark on the Bond franchise, deserving of equal respect with all the others, regardless of personal taste.

As dumb as it was, I'd argue that Die Another Day had a much better reason for Bond going rogue because it sets up his return to the service. Licence To Kill on other had has a petty revenge motive which simply had to be forgotten by his superiors in order for the franchise to go on.

@@ricardocantoral7672 I agree with your point about 'D.A.D.'. I guess Dalton's film was trying to justify his motivations, but didn't really do a good enough job. It might have helped if Dalton's Bond was also under some kind of direct threat from Sanchez that forced him to go rogue. It's not that caring about Felix and Della wasn't understandable, it's that 'M' does make a good case when he meets Bond.

@@ricardocantoral7672 : Isn’t that the whole point of the story? The writers are asking us what the difference is between Bond’s seeking revenge and the officially sanctioned murders he commits when he has his licence to kill. It was meant to examine something behind the Bond mask and take a closer look at the morality and dilemmas of his character, which it doesn’t shy away from and resolves rather neatly. The character of Bond always seems to need to, “make it personal,” in order to be able to glibly kill people, rather than just carrying out instructions from a cold distance down a sniper’s scope. This story makes us examine that from the other side of the equation, and some of its conclusions are morally grey and challengingly bold. There is a slight jarring between the adult themes and the sheer entertainment set pieces of the Bond franchise, I grant you. But it was a most worthy experiment and I’ll take Dalton’s morally compromised Bond over Roger Moore in a clown costume making Ben Elton style knob gags any day.

@@CaminoAir : I agree with your first comment. It was smart writing that did more than simply try to move the style of Bond toward the tropes that we’re finding such success in Hollywood at the time, challenging the audience and asking questions about the rights and wrongs of killing as a, “decision,” whether with a license (“licence”?) or without one. The effort was laudable, whether you love the movie or merely like it.

@@ashroskell First off, The writers aren't asking too much here. They are simply saying that this is a personal motive as opposed to the kills he made at the request of his government. That's pretty cut and dry. Secondly, there isn't a single time that we really get "behind the Bond mask". There is no dilemma or moral complexity, the bad guy hurt Bond's friend so that's the motive for Bond to go after him. Again, this is really cut and dry. Third, Bond was never really compelled to make it personal unless it was personal. He has had friends killed in the past and he has avenged then over the course of a mission and the gimmick here is, he resigns because his job got in the way of a personal motive. This was a new angle in a Bond movie but we don't get anything beyond "this time, it's personal". Also, despite the claims of the producers, this hardly reflected Fleming. Bond would not have resigned, he would simply have gotten on that plane to Istanbul and would eventually realize that this was all the nature of the business they entered in and thought it unfortunate that Della was caught in the middle of it. Would he have been pissed ? Of course but he would have accepted the reality of the situation. Also Fleming's Bond, unlike this one, was actually internally conflicted about the whole nature of his career. In Goldfinger, Bond got wasted over the guilt of killing a thug that tried to kill him. He hated what he had to do yet he did it anyway because the service gave him is identity so to resign over something as petty as revenge is unimaginable. A truly adult script would have showed the internal conflict of the character but Licence To Kill, at the end of the day, really is just meant to be an entertainment that is no more challenging than the other frivolous entertainment of the franchise. With all that said, is Licence To Kill a bad film ? No, it's a good entertainment but it was pretty flat compared to what it was imitating at the time.

Dalton definitely should have started with For Your Eyes Only. The tone of the film was not unlike The Living Daylights and we probably would have been spared the weaker parts of picture such as Bibi Dahl, the unceremonious dumping of Blofeld, and the dumb Margaret Thatcher bit.

@@ricardocantoral7672 yes, definitely. Octopussy would have been better too.

@@NH1973 I must say it's difficult to picture him in the other two Moore adventures of that decade. Still, it's a damn shame that Dalton only did two. I would have loved to have seen at least four from him.

@@ricardocantoral7672 A View to a Kill would definitely have needed a lot of rewriting to make it work. But I think Octopussy wouldn't be so difficult. If you take away the silliness and the clown suit, there's actually a decent plot underneath.

It also borrows a bit from The Hildebrand Rarity. Which was featured in For Your Eyes Only. The character of Krest, and the stingray tail which he used to punish his wife, which Sanchez uses to punish Talisa Soto in Licence To Kill.

I preferred the fun loving Connery Moore Brosnan type to the ultra serious Dalton and Craig Bond

@@pr-tj5by Nothing wrong with that :)

@@Keefymonoped It would be interesting to understand your insight behind the Dalton and Craig Bond, I'll give you mine for the 3 cinematic Bonds If I watch a Jason Bourne movie for example I want to see an ultra driven serious character doing all he can to put all the pieces together from his past, I DON'T want to see women, 1 liners, cool, suave, sophistication, Armani, charisma just NON of that If I watch a Cinematic Bond movie (the ultra cool Iconic gentleman spy) I want to see everything that MADE him Iconic, lots of women, outrageous villains, charisma, charm, suave sophistication, 1 liners, fun and ESCAPISM, getting the girls and saving the world Connery Moore and Brosnan portrayed that character and it's the only reason why Bond lasted for over 40 years ( despite the 2 Dalton movies squeezed in the middle) If you want the serious more realistic Bond of the novels then watch Dalton and Craig, the problem is that their generic action movies would never have gotten past Dr No like all the other generic action movies, all the fun and escapism was gone, now Bond has retired TWICE in the space of 4 movies because he's fallen in love (I can't understand how people still view this character as Bond) Everyone wanted to be Bond (who would want to be Dalton or Craig's dark troubled version) Imo he should be just be left alone to be Bond, just like characters like Bourne are left to be their character, we can all watch and enjoy serious dark action movies to our hearts content because there's 100s of great movies like that, why take away Bond... The last Bastion of Cinematic male masculinity It just shows how Woke this world has become imo

@@pr-tj5by I am not saying that Roger Moore's Bond or Brosnans Bond was any less than Craig's or Dalton's, they were a product of their time. In DrNo Connery was a ruthless killer, he got the job done, he was the same in From Russia with love, he was dangerous, ruthless, manipulative, a killer. What today would be called a no nonsense bad ass! A template if you will perhaps for the generic character's you mentioned that followed. Then the over the top fantasy elements arrived and took Bond in a different direction. I was a young boy at this time and I thought it was brilliant, Bond was a superman, he had gadgets for everything and always won and got the girl. It was fantastic just what the young boy I was wanted to see. Lazenby came and went in a film I disliked at the time but have come to appreciate more today, then one more Connery outing before Moore took over. Moores style was very different but I grew to like him, he just seemed very laid back and far more comedic which was fine, he never seemed as threatening or forceful as Connery in his earlier ones but things had moved on and it was fine for a while until he overstayed his welcome by a couple of films. Then Dalton arrived. To me he was a breath of fresh air in a style of film that had run its course. I would be in my late 20's by then and when I went to see him in the cinema it had everything a blockbuster needed, the action, the set pieces the thrills, but more importantly he had recaptured some of that early Connery magic for me, that seriousness that made his Bond seem more deadly and more ruthless, his films were for me a great blend of what started it all but with all of the spectacle of what came after. Brosnan did his thing, I enjoyed Goldeneye but it faded fast and became too silly by the end of his stint, then Craig came along and smashed it with Casino Royale. I enjoyed Craigs Bond, I enjoyed that they gave him an ongoing personality and storyline through his films, some better than others, and I have to say I dont think they ended it well, but thats a personal opinion of course, as is everything I have written. Thats just my take on how I have literally grown up with Bond in the background of my whole life. (now in my 60's) I hope that explains my thoughts and opinions adequately for you to understand why I felt how I did when Dalton took over and how disappointed I was that we didn't get to see more of him at the time. Phew! If you are still awake thanks for asking, I have enjoyed my trip down memory lane.

Yes, I thought the whole idea of examining the morality of Bond, by taking away his official government sanction to kill in the name of justice, was a bold attempt at inserting adult themes into the franchise. There are moments when the, “John Le Carre meats John Woo action entertainment,” sort of jar but it was a most worthy endeavour regardless. But I guess the audiences weren’t yet ready to answer questions about the rights and wrongs of revenge in an 80’s actioner? I very much preferred the Dalton Bond to the latter couple of Moore in full clown costume, making knob gags in every reel. But, tastes are personal, so . . . ✌️

FYI: PG-13 does not bar 12- and 11- and 10-year-olds from going by themselves; it is an advisory rather than exclusionary rating.

In the UK it was a 15, to my knowledge the only Bond film to have that high a rating.

"Diplomatic Immunity."

Robert Brown really shined as M in this movie. In his first two movies, he merely felt like a stand-in for the late Benard Lee. In the Dalton era, he defined his M as a strict boss that expected orders to be followed.

He was right because he made absolutely no attempt at trying to imitate either Sean or Roger. I am a Connery fan and I love Dalton but he didn't get the scripts he deserved.

Totally agree 👍 but A View to a Kill is a guilty pleasure lol

The Bond IP is primarily a British one. EON ought to have stood its ground and stuck with LICENCE (or gone with "Hildabrand Rarity"...) 😐