Timothy Dalton: The Forgotten 007

For most people, the name Timothy Dalton is foreign to fans of James Bond, or just people in general. Dalton, whom had just made two James Bond film, was sadly short lived between Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan but the mark he left behind was a unique one. In 1987, Tim made his debut as the new James Bond. His immediate predecessor was Sir Roger Moore, who had made a total of seven films as 007 from 1973 through 1985. During Moore's tenure, the Bond character turned into a slapstick, pretty boy, play-it-safe kind of Bond. Gone was the sense of danger, espionage and suspense of what Ian Fleming's original idea of Bond was. James Bond films turned into family entertainment for all. This was a 12 year experience. Now, Timothy Dalton's 1987 film, The Living Daylights took all this away and brought Bond back to his roots as a ruthless British agent with a license to kill. Now, mind you audiences were not expecting such a drastic 360 degree turn after Moore. Gone was the pretty boy style and the jokes and back was the ruthlessness that Connery brought to the role, and more! Timothy Dalton gave the world his own interpretation of Bond and brought the character from the written page of Fleming's books.

A Shakespearean trained actor, Dalton took the role of 007 most seriously. His first film didn't show Bond as a ladies man, but rather a "one lady" man. He was badass and you would totally buy him as a killer. He wasn't one to mess around. Even his tagline for a teaser poster for The Living Daylights read, "The most dangerous Bond. Ever." It was true! The Living Daylights was an instant hit and made $191 million at the box office beating the last two previous Roger Moore outings. It also beat out Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. Dalton was the new Bond and despite what some of the critics and fans said, he brought Bond back to his roots. Two years later, in 1989, Dalton returned as 007. This time, it was a mission for Her Majesty's Secret Service, but rather, a revenge story. The new movie Licence to Kill really brought out Dalton's strong side as James Bond. Bond was on his own and out to avenge he maiming of his best friend and death of his wife. Bond this time would anything and everything to kill the man responsible. Roger Moore, or any other actor that played Bond would not have been able to sell that film the way Tim did. This was meant for Timothy Dalton in mind. Any weak spots Dalton had in The Living Daylights would be eliminated and all his strength would come to play.

The reception for Licence to Kill was unfortunately quite poor. The violence factor in this film was so dark it became the first ever James Bond filmed with a PG-13 rating. The Bond series was no longer a family event and the drastic change came too soon for some. Dalton was and is the most badass 007 in terms of how he portrayed the character and his style. I think he even out beats Daniel Craig. Dalton had originally been signed on for three films, but after Licence to Kill, there was a lawsuit between distributor MGM and 007 production company EON which lead to a six year hiatus before there next film would come out. During this long gap (1989 to 1995), Dalton decided to step down from the character and the role was given to Pierce Brosnan who continued on the legacy of 007. The film GoldenEye--which was Brosnan's first role as Bond--previously known as The Propery of a Lady, was written with Timothy in mind since he was still signed onto play Bond at the time. Timothy Dalton stands out as the more ruthless James Bond ever, and he is a precursor to the current James Bond, Daniel Craig. The world today accepts Craig as an action killer and less of a spy, because it is much more accepted...well highly praised for that matter these days; especially after the influence of the Jason Bourne films. Dalton certainly came before his time and if he were James Bond today, odds are he would be far more accepted. Long live 007 #4!

My Thoughts on 3D Movies...

Call me old school, but I'm not one for 3-D movies and I'll explain why. Since I was a child, I've always enjoyed movies and have gone to the theater ever since. Ever since Avatar came around and the 3D became a new fad, I thought a bit of the movie experience was taken away. Main stream movies these days seem to focus more on effects and graphics rather than story. In my opinion, 3D can't save a movie if it sucks; which is why I never bothered to watch the Star Wars prequels when they were re-released in 3D. Seeing the movie Avatar, was amazing in and of itself and I don't think 3D glasses were needed. But, to be honest, I just don't have $14 to spend on tickets plus an extra fee for the 3D; it's just too pricy and not worth it. But I finally came to realize the truth behind having films in 3D: Money, money and more money. It's a profit thing. As mentioned before, the price for the glasses raise the ticket price and what is the point? It's not like you are going to keep the glasses after the movie. They have disposable trashcans that you hand to the person after every movie to make sure you don't take them home. And even if you do take them home, it won't matter if you bring the glasses or not, for the ticket price will already have them included in it! Being in a darkened room and having a screen in front of you is enough for me to be involved in the story. Having it in 3D...yeah I'm sure some scenes will look cool and all, but so what? I'm sure they would be cool watching them normally. I have a friend who tells me to see movies in 3D all the time. If it's a film I really dislike, like the new Spider-Man movie for instance, he tells me the sole reason is because I didn't watch it in 3D. Look, I dislike a movie, I dislike a movie. If the characters aren't interesting or if the plot is bad, good effects and CGI just don't cut it for me. I really hope that movies will have more of a focus on plot than profits in the upcoming years. I think at this rate, we won't be getting rid of 3D movies anytime soon. I mean, heck, they already have 3D TVs. So, maybe one day I will think 3D movies will be cool, but as long as we have the option to watch them in 2D, I won't have a problem with it.

SKYFALL 007 *Some spoilers*

Well, the newest Bond film is finally here and that is Skyfall starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench and Javier Bardem. Being the 50th anniversary of the 007 films and the 23rd official James Bond movie, this movie was just awesome and everything you've come to expect and more from this franchise.

Four years ago, the disaster known as Quantum of Solace was released. It was the first direct sequel to a Bond movie and the first to use some crew from the Jason Bourne films. Now, having Bond compete or try to mimic a totally different franchise was the first mistake. The second mistake was the fact that they actually did it. Constant unnecessary shaking of the camera to I guess bring a sense of realism didn't really do anything but just say, "Let's destroy 46 years of originality and slap some Jason Borune in there. Didn't work. Skyfall was such a relief and brought things back to the classic world of James Bond that we all know and love with a modern twist to it. The things that made the Bond films so successful is that not only did they retain the feel of the 60s, but also adapt to the modern times. No more people taking over the world; no more unrealistic situations; but more of a focus on the spy genre and drama to the character. Back to the point at hand, Skyfall is up there with the great James Bond films as Goldfinger, GoldenEye and Licence to Kill. There is much story development here and Daniel Craig, although not my favorite James Bond, has really made the part his own and in no way is he trying to mimic Sean or Pierce or the others. If anything, he has a touch of what Timothy Dalton brought to the role: Less time for the ladies and more time for his job. The films starts off with a bang, and of course it must since every James Bond film must have a spectacular opening sequence before the movie starts. And after that the film begins. James Bond and Eve Moneypenny are on a mission in Istanbul to run down an assassin responsible for stealing important files regarding agents in the British Secret Service. Bond finds the man responsible and chases him throughout the city in a spectacular bike chase through the streets of Turkey and ends up with a hand to hand fight on the train. Bond gains the upper hand but M orders Eve to fire a the e assassin and sadly they she shoots the wrong man and Bond falls to his "death" off a bridge. The next day, M writes an obituary on 007 presuming he is dead. Bond, however is not really dead yet enjoying himself on the loose and begins to drink and just grow a beard and not care about his time as an agent. He has basically lost his memory. M's superiors thing she is incompetent due to the loss of the information on the agents and has nods about resigning from the service once and for all. Bond, in Shanghai, then catches up with the man he was chasing earlier on the train and notices that he is setting up a sniper attack on someone. When he fires and kills the target, he spots Bond and then has a fight to the death in which case Bond prevails this time and instead of Bond falling to his death, it's the assassin's turn and falls to his death. Now, Bond meets up with a girl that he spotted near the down target and ends up getting her to take him to the one mastermind responsible for this mess. She takes him to the man, who turns out to be an old member of MI6. Now, that is as far as I'll go with this review. I didn't mean to turn this into a tangent or a synopsis of the damn film, but if you want to know more I recommend you find out the rest in your local theater or just read a spoiler online. But I'll conclude with this: Skyfall is the movie to see if you are interested in a good story; action; character development and suspense. After four years out of the picture, James Bond 007 is back like you've never seen him before!