John Scalzi opines that both of Timothy Dalton's Bond films were bad, and then quite a few of his commenters agree. This is, of course, colossal claptrap (both of those films are, to me, high points in the series, and both are superior to the unimaginably overrated Goldfinger), although I agree with John that Pierce Brosnan has been given a lot of bad credit for his time in the role.
Also, I'm frankly surprised that John didn't try to take a self-portrait of himself-as-Blofeld, since he's got the hair and a fluffy cat. (Not the right color fluffy cat, but who's counting?)
Anyway, I'll post about Casino Royale sometime this week.
The personal blog of author Kelly Sedinger, chronicling the adventures of one overalls-clad wanderer.
2 comments:
Dalton's films aren't bad, but they're the victims of split personality, trying to do both the Moore and Connery thing at the same time. Doesn't really work.
Brosnan is my favorite Bond. I think it's pretty clear that he respected and loved the character and role more than any other--Connery included. Unfortunately, he got saddled with some of the most formulaic scripts in the series. Ironic that as hard as he pushed for a gritty, get-his-hands-dirty Bond film, the Broccolis refused to go that direction until they'd dumped Brosnan. Methinks Daniel Craig should send him a note of thanks.
I enjoy the first Dalton movie, though find the second one pretty average.
BTW, I tried my hand at your Bond quiz, my answers are in the comments.
Post a Comment