Conclamo Ludus

The activist in me feels that I must work to correct a grave injustice that has long gone ignored or gets buried under more media-savvy causes. This injustice is the general consensus among the cinema-going public that Timothy Dalton is in fact the worst James Bond this world has ever seen. I used to accept this premise as most people do when they pass over that dark spot of the late-80's Bond films. Upon reviewing a few of the titles recently on my sick days, I have come to the conclusion that he is in fact one of the best. It really depends on what you want out of a ridiculously impossible character like James Bond.

Sean Connery: Undeniably the best, no sane person would argue against this. Of course he is the best. He is the first. He is without exception the perfect Bond. He had the perfect amount of savior-faire blended with a mean-streak and a temper that nobody wanted to test.

George Lazenby: Probably the worst, just because nobody remembers him. He did one film. I've never seen it, but I venture to believe there is a reason they didn't ask him back.

Roger Moore: Before Roger Moore there really wan't much to parody in the Austin Powers films. Roger Moore gave Mike Myers a truckload of crap to poke fun at. Roger Moore made James Bond a parody of himself. His films have some redeeming value, but as an actor he brought James Bond into an element of silliness that nobody could reverse. On top of it he pumped out Bond films like they were going out of style, and by the time Timothy Dalton took the helm, they had gone out of style.

Timothy Dalton: People love to shit on this guy. He's the wuss Bond. He's the ugly Bond. He's the late-80's Bond. Whats taken for granted about Timothy Dalton, and this is perhaps why people disliked him, he's the most realistic Bond. He's the most human Bond. Timothy Dalton's Bond had a temper to him that we hadn't seen since Connery. Dalton was the darkest portrayal of Bond. He added a dimension of realism, and I use the term realism very lightly, this is after all James Bond. The film a License to Kill failed miserably to find an american audience although it did quite well internationally. License to Kill is the Empire Strikes Back of Bond films. Its very dark, its very real, and its got some depth to it. The villain, played by Robert Davi, was a druglord. This is a far cry from some whacko with a volcano hideout bent on world domination. There are plenty of wild stunts in License to Kill, but they had an element of believability to them that you no longer see since the advent of computer-generated special effects. They were on a tighter budget so everything was filmed on location. You didn't have the elaborate, but unrealistic sets that Ken Adam had designed for the previous films, and you didn't have the side-splitting CG effects of today's Pierce Brosnan pictures. License to Kill found an interesting spot in between these pictures.

Pierce Brosnan: Brosnan may be the best since Connery. He found the happy medium between the English campiness of Roger Moore and the emotional seriousness of the Dalton. This combination makes him a little more like Connery.

If you haven't seen License to Kill in a long time, I say watch it again for the first time. You'll be surprised. Rounding out the cast is a very young Benecio Del Toro as villain Robert Davi's second in command. Del Toro already shows his ingenious ability to underact a part. His mannerisms are completely signature even this early in his career. Its a great film. Bond actually becomes a rogue agent on a personal vendetta. Very bold. Its a departure from Roger Moore's invulnerability and it was a necessary rung in the ladder of Bond films.

So, getting down to brass tacks I put them in the following order:

1. Sean Connery
2. Pierce Brosnan
3. Timothy Dalton
4. Roger Moore
5. George who? Oh yeah, Lazenby.

Its about time Dalton got some overdue credit as the #3 not the #5.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues