I'm sorry to say I don't buy Dalton as Bond. I just cannot suspend disbelief. Maybe because his interpretation is so actorly it's more obviously different from what Moore had been doing? Brosnan may have had the advantage because he wasn't trying to act, just fill the tux and look pretty as required, but Dalton is trying so hard to give the character his own spin and it's unrecognisable as any Bond we once knew.
I do disagree that Dalton is "unrecognisable as any Bond we once knew"- IMHO he's the literary Bond almost exactly, or as close as we're reasonably likely to get, and much more so than any of the other actors.
I agree fully. Dalton is the closest we are ever likely to get to Fleming's Bond. Agree that some of the legacy type dialogue and comic Cello case stuff jars. At least we were spared the flying carpet scene. Otherwise top notch.
I misspoke. Dalton's version is unrecognisable as any version of Bond previously seen in film. It is closer to Fleming's version, who was plagued by doubts and made mistakes and was always muttering an oath. But filmBond quickly became a smooth cool indestructible quipster, so any attempt to actually explore the character as Fleming wrote it would be radically different.
I don't know what my problem is, because I didn't see the Dalton films when they came out, I shouldn't be judging them in comparison to what Moore was doing. I should be able to assess them on their own terms without considering their place in the chronology.
I guess its just ...Daylights does have a few leftover Moore-style moments, that tend to fall flat and pull me out of what Dalton is trying to do. There's really not that many actual attempts at jokes though, and the generally grey coldwar vibe of the first half is played straighter than anything Moore ever did, even ...Eyes...
I still think License... is the purer DaltonBond experience, not many quips or sightgags in that one, and he is certainly given plenty to brood about.