Many fans of Bond books and films have, on this site and others, said that Timothy Dalton is unfairly called the worst Bond ever. When my friend Seth and I saw these comments, we thought that they were only joking, but soon realized they were serious! Him and I both agree that Mr. Dalton is, by far, the WORST Bond ever. Seth put it best when he said, "The first time I saw Timothy Dalton as James Bond I asked myself, 'where is Bond?' In this scene, there were three people in a limo and Bond simply dissolved into the background. I had seen other Bond films lately and I could always pick Bond right out, no matter who played him. But with Dalton, Bond was invisible." For a man who is 6'2", he has NO screen presence.
The plot, while cleverly outside the box, fails on several counts. First, The acting is sloppy and sub par for these movies (which if anyone remembers Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough, this is saying an awful lot). Dalton never does anything but stare in confused concentration, without ever changing his face, to express all ranges of emotion. Some might take this as the steely-jawed Bond from the books, but to me and all of my friends(Bond-lovers all) it looks like bad acting.
Some people have said that Dalton stands far above other Bond actors such as Roger Moore. They denounce Moore as "silly." Seth shall hereby rise to Moore's defense. "Dalton could not manage to be silly, or even be funny. The puns, which have become a staple to Bond fans, in Licence to Kill are atrocious. I myself wince at most puns, but in these movies I had to steel my stomach in order to prevent myself from losing my lunch. They were that bad. It may not be Dalton's fault that he was given such terrible material, but the manner that he delivers them only makes them worse." Something that Moore never had a problem with.
Finally, Dalton-lovers often point out that he is the "character that Ian Fleming wrote about." Well, I hate to break it to these people, but Movies and Books are different beasts completely. What works on the page does not on the screen, and vice versa. Just look at good book adaptations, such as Jurassic Park or Lord of the Rings, and BAD adaptations, such as Sphere or All The Pretty Horses. The key difference is not acting quality, directing, or the script. It is literalism and over-reliance on the book. Writer Orsen Scott Card said, "There are a thousand ways to tell any story, choose the one most appropriate..." Dalton may play it close to the book, but he does it too far into the series for it to be acceptable for the franchise, and thank God he didn't; because then we wouldn't have twenty Bond films, we'd have his two.
The plot, while cleverly outside the box, fails on several counts. First, The acting is sloppy and sub par for these movies (which if anyone remembers Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough, this is saying an awful lot). Dalton never does anything but stare in confused concentration, without ever changing his face, to express all ranges of emotion. Some might take this as the steely-jawed Bond from the books, but to me and all of my friends(Bond-lovers all) it looks like bad acting.
Some people have said that Dalton stands far above other Bond actors such as Roger Moore. They denounce Moore as "silly." Seth shall hereby rise to Moore's defense. "Dalton could not manage to be silly, or even be funny. The puns, which have become a staple to Bond fans, in Licence to Kill are atrocious. I myself wince at most puns, but in these movies I had to steel my stomach in order to prevent myself from losing my lunch. They were that bad. It may not be Dalton's fault that he was given such terrible material, but the manner that he delivers them only makes them worse." Something that Moore never had a problem with.
Finally, Dalton-lovers often point out that he is the "character that Ian Fleming wrote about." Well, I hate to break it to these people, but Movies and Books are different beasts completely. What works on the page does not on the screen, and vice versa. Just look at good book adaptations, such as Jurassic Park or Lord of the Rings, and BAD adaptations, such as Sphere or All The Pretty Horses. The key difference is not acting quality, directing, or the script. It is literalism and over-reliance on the book. Writer Orsen Scott Card said, "There are a thousand ways to tell any story, choose the one most appropriate..." Dalton may play it close to the book, but he does it too far into the series for it to be acceptable for the franchise, and thank God he didn't; because then we wouldn't have twenty Bond films, we'd have his two.