Charmingly pretentious, left-wing misfit. Prefers the West Midlands, but lives in the Midwest. Skilled taxidermist, crime fighter and former Olsen Twin. Dislikes olives. Fluent in English, Pig Latin and Esperanto. No trespassing.
Octopussy & The Living Daylights and Other Stories[Audiobook][Audio CD] (x)
'Octopussy' read by Tom Hiddleston: Sample AudioGO (x)
So this is a thing that is going to happen and that I will listen to even though I have the books, but why would I read them like a fucking moron when I could have Tom caress my ears with his voice while he reads them.
Does this mean that they’ll finally be releasing Part II of the special collector’s edition audio box set?!
Obviously we are excited about this for different reasons.
anindependentguinevere: Hi Rachel! I've missed you on my dash. I hope it's because you're fabulously busy with amazing things. Anyway, here's my question: who's your ideal, perfect, never-to-be-topped casting choice for James Bond?
I am moderately busy with relatively banal things, but I will accept your lovely compliment nonetheless.
As for my top James Bond casting choice, I have to say, I think Daniel Craig might be it. I never considered him for the role before he was cast (I knew him from Elizabeth, Enduring Love, Layer Cake, and a few other random films, but didn’t have him anywhere on my Bond radar), but his portrayal of my beloved character has been pitch perfect from the very beginning. He captures all 007’s nuances brilliantly—from his celebrated cockiness to his rarely-seen self-doubt and inner-torment.
Fleming describes Bond as looking like a colder, crueller version of Hoagy Carmichael, but until 2006, I always read the novels with the mental image of Sean Connery. Now, whenever I read them, I picture Craig as he looks in Love Is The Devil (because, yeah, the blond hair still bothers me a little), and I really can’t imagine anybody being more spot on than that.
Frankly, I’ll be really sad when he ages out of the role. Hopefully we’ll get two more films out of him before that happens.
Following the great commercial success of Living Daylights, Bond screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson began developing a screenplay meant suit Timothy Dalton’s darker, more austere portrayal of 007. The result was Licence to Kill, a gritty revenge thriller that, on the surface, is about Bond seeking seeking retribution on behalf of fallen friends, but, underneath it all, is almost more to do with the famous spy’s own tortured past and broken heart.
Reception to Licence to Kill (initially entitled Licence Revoked, before MGM’s marketing department purportedly decided ‘revoked’ wasn’t a word we Yanks were capable of comprehending), was decidedly mixed, with some critics applauding its Fleming-esque air of brutality, but many filmgoers decrying the series’ new descent into violence. However, as Timothy Dalton aptly said in the 2012 documentary Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007: ’[people complained to us] “I can’t take my six and seven year old to see James Bond now!” Well, it was never meant for six and seven year olds!’
I personally have a very complicated relationship with Licence to Kill, in that my enthusiasm for it flip-flops from one extreme to the other with each viewing. By the time the credits roll, I’m either thinking ‘Why did I remember this movie being so good? It’s kind of rubbish’ or ‘Why did I remember that movie as being rubbish? It’s really good’. This last time around, I really loved the film, so count on that to mean I’ll find it thoroughly disappointing by the time I watch it again sometime next year.
Still, either way, I’m happy to praise Timothy Dalton’s performance and to commend Licence to Kill for being thematically ahead of its time. After all, there’s nothing wrong with playing a few hands at Casino de Isthmusbefore heading out to Casino Royale.
If you’re licensed, click below the fold for more 007:
Following the cinematic failure otherwise known as A View to a Kill, the ageing Roger Moore finally hung up his exploding ski pole and retired from the role of James Bond. From there, the mantle of 007 was meant to be taken up by Pierce Brosnan, but he was forced to bow out due to contractual obligations for his popular television show, Remington Steele. Eon considered several other actors, including Sam Neill (they do travel in herds!), but ultimately offered the part went to the clasically-trained Shakespearean actorTimothy Dalton.
Now, a lot of people these days seem to regard Dalton’s Bond as either forgettable or dull, but I absolutely adore him, and for good reason—When Dalton agreed to be Bond, he did so under condition that he could play a darker version of 007, more akin to Fleming’s brooding literary character (as opposed to Moore’s foppish playboy interpretation). So, given that I’m something of a Fleming purist, it’s not hard to understand why Dalton’s Bond appeals to me. Granted, he doesn’t quite achieve the Fleming-esque perfection delivered by Daniel Craig, but without Dalton paving the way, Craig’s 007 might never have seen the light of day living daylights.
Moreover, Dalton’s first Bond movie, The LivingDaylights,is a thoroughly enjoyable romp of a film. Sure, it could do without some of the silly gadgetry, but on the whole, it’s a solidly crafted spy thriller with political relevance and a believable central performance. To quote film critic Mark Harrison:
[Dalton’s Bond is] inarguably the most secret agent of the bunch, with the emphasis on secret. Rather than inflicting massive property damage or faffing about with hover-gondolas, he does some actual spying. The Living Daylights is hardly Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, but it’s the closest to an actual espionage thriller that the Bond series had mustered since From Russia With Love.
And after 12 years worth of Roger Moore escapades, isn’t that exactly what we need?