The Dalton films may have grossed less than Moore's, but artistically speaking, I feel Dalton did indeed "rescue" the 007 movies.Eric Paddon wrote:I can't accept the argument that Dalton "rescued" the series since TLD did not duplicate the box office peak we saw with "Octopussy" a few years earlier and we all know how much LTK tanked at the box office is the US.
I like the Moore films and they can be a lot of fun...but they strayed into the realm of sheer stupidity at times. I know that Bond adventures are fanciful to begin with, but some of the cartoon-like moments in the Moore movies -- the gondala driving through the city square, Jaws and his girlfriend, Dr, Katenga blowing-up like a balloon -- were ridiculous, preposterous gags that seemed more at home in the 1967 Casino Royale. They didn't ruin the films for me, but some of those moments still make me cringe.
Also, with the exception of FYEO, the Moore films are, to me, "Bond lite". I remain adamant that real Bond films must have a hard edge to some degree -- even when dealing with fanciful notions like private planes gassing everyone in Fort Knox, or Blofeld dispatching teenage girls to poison the world.
I like Moonraker a lot, but rate MWTGG the second-worst 007 film ever (Goldeneye being the worst). Some of the "Moore-isms" did hang over TLD, but Dalton's darker portrayal of 007 was refreshing to me, and believable as a man who kills for a living, drinks straight vodka and lives on the edge.Eric Paddon wrote:I'll still take Moonraker and Man With The Golden Gun over LTK any day of the week.
I can understand if LTK is too dark and caustic for some, but at least its tone is consistent, which I can't say is true for most of the Moore films (or Diamonds Are Forever either, which is when the era of goofy "Bond lite" really began).