Fair assessment. I've always thought that Dalton was underrated, or more specifically let down by the makers of his Bond films. I don't think there has been a better actor to have played Bond than Dalton.

Agreed: the Timothy Dalton Bonds simply were not very good movies (IMHO) - he simply got shortchanged - and Dalton played Bond without any hint of humor. I once read in a book about the 007 movies (up to the first Dalton flick), that the producers (at the time) basically went between two different approaches: the "From Russia..."-approach (more serious) and the "Goldfinger"-approach (more tongue-in-cheeck and gimmicky). Perhaps Dalton was just a bit too dramatic, vulnerable and perhaps a bit too polite, polished, too nice. I like the fact that Craig can pull off the nasty guy and swifter. It is old news that the Bourne trilogy influenced the Bond franchise. Good. Now please without the shaky camera syndrome and we're good.

I sense, that the entire Bond philosophy will change for good away from the "we all know he never really is in danger" territory. Very good.
I grew up with the Moore Bond movies. It was good fun, but I never believed Moore for one second - it was too obvious they had to work around the problem that Roger Moore is an actor of very limited range and that range does not include anything resembling menace. Some of his villains were so pathetic and non-menacing (Moonraker anyone?), I even felt bad and embarrassed for them.
Now - I hope - everyone means business. I definitely will see the new Bond.

This is a statement that I disagree with, but I am willing to concede that Dalton wasn't exactly given good films to show his abilities in. I like Dalton as an actor too, especially in films like The Rocketeer and Hot Fuzz, but his portrayals of Bond never did much for me compared to Brosnan, Connery, or Craig.

Ya see, I never dug Brosnan.

He wasn't terrible, but his films were ultimately bland and he added little to them.

GoldenEye was pretty good albeit.

That's the main issue with the Moore Bonds. They did show a couple scenes of him being tough and cold (most notably the scene in For Your Eyes Only when he kciked the assassin over the cliff), yet on the whole he never came off as truly dangerous. Of all the Bond actors, the main reason Moore stuck with the series the longest is most likely because he had nowhere else to go. While Dalton was able to return to the stage and Connery moved on into serious dramatic roles, Moore's range meant his chances for moving on from the series were very limited.

The Bond films moved into the realm of schlock under Moore's tenure. I watched Octopussy again recently, and it's painfully cheesy when compared to Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace.

I'm enough of a life-long Bond fan that I'll probably support any direction in which they decide to take the series, or at least approach it with an open mind. Quantum, for all its faults, still satisfied many of my expectations strictly as a Bond fan.

I've lost all patience for the Brosnan era. I think he was basically just a 2nd-rate Arnold Schwartzaneggar, and his movies were just generic action flicks, and as such, kinda cruddy. Even Goldeneye doesn't hold up nearly as well as some of the Moores.

I maintain that Casino Royale, while great, does not completely eclipse other phases of the series the way some fans said it did. On a rainy day, or any day, I would just as soon watch a good Moore.

I honestly think Roger Moore is a good contender for the best Bond, or at least an extremely close second to Connery. While most of the actors just appear to be filling shoes, Moore and Craig are the only ones who really brought their own unique style into the role. And the Moore films are a hell of a lot of fun. I watched View to a Kill the other day, which I used to think was one of the worst Bond flicks, and was surprised to find how much fun I had. The truth is, it's funny; I think humor goes a long way, especially in the context of a film that's supposed to be serious. It's so much more enjoyable, and in many ways more professional, than any of the Avengers movies. John Glen knew how to manage a good production.

I enjoyed reading all the replies since my last post. We are all long time fans of the Bond franchise and will watch any new Bond movie no matter what lol of course we will talk later with the fact on hands how good it was

Why I like this franchise so much myself. Mainly because I go to the Cinema to be entertained , to relieve the stress and no movie brings more escapism from reality than the Bond films

In the 60's James Bond made to wish most men to be him and most women to be with him by being a dare devil debonair womaniser spy with cool gadgets that only drinks Martinis and champagne. The producers Broccoli and Haltzman took Fleming's books and added incredible stunts, exotic locations and awesome music . "Every things he touches turns to excitement" was the tagline, rotation of beautiful girls and Connery were great.

Then Broccoli maintained the franchise up to date by introducing culture factors of the times
The big gun (dirty Harry) and 70's black exploitation in live an let die film
The Star Wars laser guns fight and space (Moonraker)
At the end of the 80's Bond becomes one women man because of the 80's Aids HaHa

In tomorrow never dies (the villain looks like Ruppert Murdoch lol)

Craig was brought to compete against another popular type of spy (Jason Bourne) who was very dark. Every thing very dark was immensely popular after 9/11 (Dark Knight, 24 TV series, Bourne) in the 2000's

However after Bin Laden's dead people are starting to lighten up and I am personally by now missing a mix between the old debonair Bond (Connery) with humour and cool gadgets.

I am not enthusiastic with what I have seen so far of Skyfall showing a Bond fighting his demons . Gee I want to escape from my owns when I go to see a Bond movie myself HaHa

At the beginning this movie was going to be shot in 3D but the Producers at the end decided not to go in that direction (probably Mendes is not a fan of the technology) they shot it digital but not using Imax cameras but going to convert to IMAX lol

As I mentioned before Broccoli (mainly the father and in minor degree the daughter that now manage the franchise with her half brother) had a keen eye to see international trends and incorporate them in the Bond franchise to keep it updated

The Avengers are showing the current trend for hugely popular action movies of 3D and entertaining banter between the main characters. SkyFall is definitely missing the first one and with Bond fighting his demons I am not sure about the second. Not to mention the beer drinking fact that I personally not like despised of being a beer drinking myself

Anyway, I will go to see it and happy to talk about it with this fan audience after

Cheers

Yep, sadly I already can tell from the teaser trailers in O.K.ish YouTube 480p resolution that Skyfall was "filmed" in digital (ARRI Alexa cameras) It has the same glassy and metallic look as, say, "T.G. with the Dragon Tatoo (US version). It's not bad at all and it certainly does not look cheap or vedeo-ish (even though technically it IS video, not film) but still something is missing.
Well here I go again. My opinion remains: digital is here to stay, because it has way too many advantages over film and it simply is a way more advanced technology (advanced into the right direction hat is). I think we are still in a trasition era. I look forward to watching movies with crystal clear images with high frame rates and creative color ranges and textures. Almost there. Perhaps Skyfall will be a little more tweaked for the release prints (or rather: data files).

BTW: I agree that some Moore Bonds are very good movies. Unfortunately one of the best Bonds (IMHO) was the one with George Lazenby (poor guy, he definitely played the wrong gig and killed his carreer forever). Diana Rigg was just awesome in this. Imagine this movie with Connery as 007.......

I hope that this turns out to be a decent Bond film. I know people are really back and forth on QOS but I really didn't like it.

Casino Royale was a really good film though, so I'm not predicting a bad movie. Just remaining skeptical until I can see it myself.

Either way, I'm excited.

I think QoS' problem is that it is too subtle, and not overtly Bond enough for some people. The plot itself for example - monoplising the water supply in a South American country many won't have heard of - is too abstract and remote in its politics for many people to give a shit.

People expect rockets pointing at the earth. Freakin sharks with freakin laser beams on their heads as Mike Myers expertly grasped and parodied. Casino Royale tapped effortlessly into the generic threat of international terrorism and its probable relationship with legitimate finance...and how this directly affects us all.

I was disspointed the first time I watched QoS because I was expecting another Casino Royale, but I enjoyed it increasingly more on the 2 subsequent viewings.

It is a good film in its own right.

I liked QoS as well, I liked that it was more grounded and less over-the-top(not that I disliked the more OTT entries in the series, I seem to be the only perosn on this forum who actually likes Die Another Day) and I loved Eva Green's performance. I also didn't mind the directing as much as most people, while i'll admit it was a bit much at times, it wasn't nearly as headache inducing as the directing in the Bourne sequels(speaking of which, I saw a trailer for Bourne Legacy, which looks pretty bad-ass)

Um, Eva Green was in Casino Royale, not Quantum of Solace.

Whoops! i meant to say Olga Kurylenko.

Placing Quantum of Solace in perspective:

IMDB : 6.8 (145,552 votes)
Rotten Tomattoes : 65% (246 reviews)
Berardinelli review : 2.5 stars



US Box Ofiice in comparison to the rest of the franchise (adjusted for ticket price inflation)



from : http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/cha ... esbond.htm

as Berardinelli finished his review James will return.....with Skyfall, let's see how performs. I do not have my hopes high myself lol

I do not often agree with Roger Ebert reviews but I was very amused with this review:



read the whole review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /811129989

By the way I would have given 2 1/2 stars like James did the first time time I saw it

I saw it again recently in blu -ray and demoted to 2 stars which is what Ebert gave it lol

Ebert finishes his review:



I couldn't agree more this time with Ebert

Quantum, to me, is a perfectly competent Bond movie. Liked the girls and the villains, the plot was fine, the locations were satisfactory, Craig himself was solid if a bit stilted. The bad parts where when the producers wanted it to be a direct sequel to Casino Royale, as if that would suddenly catapult Bond back into the realm of major $200 mil tentpole franchise. So we had Bond's continued mourning of Vesper, and the returns of Felix and Mathis, all of which felt boring, bland, and obligatory.

The other problem was that the pacing was too fast. Like many a bullshit blockbuster we get these days, Quantum just cannot calm itself down. The first half, through the opera scene, charges through everything like the energizer bunny, leaving Bond fans in dismay and everyone else in mild confusion. After that, it gets better, but the film never quite recovers from the guffaw of the first half.

The one criticism I'd go against is the notion that it was too Bourne-ish. There's a lot of truth to that, but enough good Bond stuff to distinguish it from that forgettable series. One last problem is the annoyingly close watch M keeps over Bond. Alas, it seems the Craig era will be forever remembered as the time when Bond had a wet nurse holding his hand the entire time. For this reason, and others which include the absence of Moneypenny and Q, I don't think the Craig era will ever eclipse either Connery or Moore.

The one thing I've noticed about QoS is that it is increasingly unpopular with Bond fans the harder core they get.

It seems more popular with fans of generic thriller/action films. It's a more grown up Bond film. Whether you find that for better or worse is subjective really.

Q is back
http://moviehole.net/201255566comic-con-first-look-at-q-in-skyfall
but now James Bond looks the old man lol
Hope that the gadgets are good thou
I liked the gadgets in the Ghost protocol (Mission Impossible franchise) movie

there's a new Skyfall trailer with Dark Knight IMAX