All well and good.
However, the central villains are a weakness, neither really working alone or as a duo.
The girl is admirable but a little trying.
The pace sometimes flags, and the stakes never rise.
The Villains:A three-in-one deal.
Never a great sign: quality is rarely offered in quantity.
Georgi Koskov is a cheerful, treacherous KGB General a perfectly amiable cove but hardly a figure of menace.
Koskov has plenty of screen time but little impact: the film doesnt even bother to kill him off.
Bullish arms dealer Brad Whitaker at least gets a proper death scene.
Unfortunately Whitaker gets little else; his screen presence is barely five minutes.
Oafish Texans, however well-developed their Napoleon complex, rarely make classic Bond villains.
Luckily Necros saves the day: a cold blooded killer, deadly as they come.
She remains the only musical Bond girl as far as memory serves.
Her cello doubles up as a handy toboggan; Stradivarius would not be pleased.
Bond has only fallen in love twice.
Kara may be the most developed romance not named Tracy or Vesper.
I wish I warmed to her a little more.
Nobodys problem but my own.
Ad content continues below
So The Living Daylights.Why hang around?
We enter the fray via a short, sharp pre-credits; not a classic, perfectly serviceable nonetheless.
Dalton convincingly dangles from a moving jeep: an important credential to establish.
He later commandeers the phone of a beautiful woman (is that really a mobile?)
and, less convincingly, delays his report by an hour after she offers him a drink.
This isnt Daltons fault: each Bond has their own strengths and weaknesses.
Indeed, most new Bonds spend their first film playing to the strengths of the last guy.
Nor do I blame the writers: after seven films, a little hangover could only be expected.
It would be remiss not to acknowledge the overlap, but we neednt dwell on it.
One of my favourite Dalton scenes arrives early.
M is invoked; Bond stays superbly unfazed.
If he fires me, Ill thank him for it, he growls, eyes fixed on the road.
I only kill professionals, he continues, the bitterness audible.
This Bond doesnt like himself very much.
After Moore a Bond you suspect kissed the mirror each morning the new era has truly begun.
Watch The Living Daylights on Amazon
Another great moment comes around the safe house debrief table.
As Koskov prattles on, we get a close-up of Bond smoking silently, his eyes hard and suspicious.
Im not sure if anyone has ever looked more authentically spy than Dalton in that shot.
(Cool here isnt Fonzie Cool but Philip Marlowe Cool: laconic, hard-bitten, tough.)
Well come to Koskov a little later.
His Pushkin-incriminating debrief is played all wrong.
Not only do you not believe him, you dont believe MI6 would either.
I never quite understand how a bit of paper constitutes irrevocable evidence the previously friendly Pushkin has gone rogue.
Especially as the only source linking Pushkin to Smiert Spionom is Koskov himself.
Who happens to be a rival of Pushkin.
And is now demanding MI6 assassinate him.
Alright 40 and Im cutting my arm off.
The defection makes even less sense in hindsight.
Why not hand Necros the job?
Why involve the Brits?
In fairness toThe Living Daylights, at least the defection and the arms deal are sort of interlinked.
Compared to say,Octopussy, where the focus clicks from Faberge egg to nuclear bomb seemingly at random.
One benefit of Koskovs defection is Koskovs subsequent extraction.
Necros singlehandedly takes apart the MI6 safe house in a truly great sequence.
The greatness is twofold: one, the utterly professional manner in which Necros sets about his task.
No frills, no stupid quips, just a whole load of kick ass.
Equally great is the absence of Bond and therefore rules.
Youd lose the bite with Bond involved.
Bond cant be scarred, and Bond must win: two major impediments to a great fight scene.
The cheek-burning marks the return of actual pain to Bond after a prolonged absence.
See also the later Afghan jail fight, when Bond smashes a metal door against the jailers arm.
Onto Bratislava and Kara Milovy.
Can we talk freely?
Im no fan of Kara.
I find her irritating and a little dim.
Her puppyish devotion to Koskov then Bond particularly grates.
At first its all Georgi this and Georgi that; later we get the classic Oh James.
She betrays Bond to Koskov, then switches back to Bond by the very next scene.
This becomes a theme.
Honestly, if Bond ditched Kara and her stupid cello in Bratislava hed have avoided no end of grief.
Yet this distaste is my problem.
Objectively, Kara is a minor triumph.
Her and Bond share a proper romance, not just another fling.
Kara feels like a real person, not a blond cipher or exotic fantasy.
it’s possible for you to often predict what shell do because of who she is.
Brave, well-intentioned, unhelpful.
She can act in character because she has one.
Koskov is the closest the series has yet come to Largo.
The eccentric, buffoonish soldier conceals a ruthless and calculating sociopath.
Othello takes an entire play to spot this; Bond requires about two scenes.
Herein lies the problem.
Koskov is an interesting idea aborted at the last minute.
The antagonist-as-ally was pioneered by Arial Kristatos but Kristatos never quite convinced as either.
Koskov, I feel, might have done.
Earlier I criticised Koskov or rather Jerome Krabbe for playing the MI6 debrief far too broadly.
But perhaps the script primarily the kill Pushkin element lets him down a little.
Playing Koskov as a KGB Sheriff Pepper could have been inspired.
The Roger Moore era had just happened.
Allies far more outlandish than the extroverted Koskov were rolled out every other film.
The longer Koskov bumbled around, the more shocking his villainy would prove.
Hold off Bad Koskov until late in the game and you might be onto a winner.
Yet Koskovs duplicity is revealed too early to have any impact.
you might barely call it a twist.
He becomes an amiable, lightweight enemy, short of menace; a rogue more than a true villain.
But I like my antagonists to carry a little more threat…
Ah, Necros.
Necros is a gold standard henchman; a real high class product.
Loquacious he is not plus ca change but his silence is eloquent; it speaks of a true professional.
His assassination of Saunders by booby-trapped cafe doors (bang, whoosh, crunch) is ingenious and painful.
But the climatic struggle with Bond is the standout set-piece: of this film and many others.
Ultimately Bond severs his shoelaces to send Necros tumbling into the sky.
Obviously we get a stale pun: Bonds unconvincing He got the BOOT!
Again, a line is delivered by Dalton that seems written for Moore.
Two allies neatly encapsulate the film: General Pushkin and Kamran Shah.
Pushkin is easier so lets do him first.
The peerless Jonathan Rhys Davis makes a winning Head of KGB.
Hed make a great uncle.
Treasure the hotel execution scene, where Pushkin and companion are ambushed by a vengeful Bond.
Gain that vital second.
Enemy neutralized, Bond orders the girlfriend Go in the bathroom, lock the door.
You sense, and thrillingly so, that Bond lived this scene too many times.
You wonder whether hes about to live it once more.
Any occurrence that results in Jonathan Rhys Davies cannot be wholly mourned.
However it is a damn shame General Gogol was denied a worthy last bow.
The frenemy has become a welcome stock character: Mathis for Craig, the mighty Valentine for Brosnan.
Invariably in the company of a buxom assistant (the mans libido rivalled Bonds).
Sad that a man who illuminated so many backgrounds finally missed the opportunity to take centre stage.
Of course his real Bond is Moore.)
I still dont understand Kamrans behaviour in the jail.
Possibly to hide his seniority but surely hed drop the act once Bond broke him out?
Apparently, it requires a shave for equilibrium to be restored.
Kamran blames his early eccentricity on a hangover from my Oxford days.
I dont understand that line either.
Kamran proves a reverse Samson: after a good haircut hes right as rain.
The Soviet-Afghan War had lasted eight years at the time of the films release.
The Cold War was only ever a backdrop; Vietnam and the Falklands passed without nary a mention.
Afghanistan marks Bonds first exposure to an actual conflict that involved actual people in the world outside the cinema.
This engagement with contemporary events is laudable and problematic.
That finale of Bond blowing up the bridge?
Killing hundreds of Soviet soldiers, rescuing the beleaguered Afghans?
James Bond thwarting SPECTRE is one thing.
James Bond killing Russians on behalf of the Mujahedeen…the ground feels a little shaky.
Leave aside the whole Western hero saves imperilled natives from Western villains schtick.
The foray into reality seems a little false.
As far asthisparticular retrospective is concerned, its forever 1987)
The Whittaker dust-up is underwhelming.
A brief history lesson, a flurry of gunfire and a wolf whistle.
Since Bond and Whittaker havent previously met, no sense of enmity exists.
The final showdown, even if a damp squib, should provide an emotional crescendo.
But Whittaker is rather a nonentity of a villain.
Setting Bond against Koskov might work better, although that would seem a shocking mismatch.
Bless him but its not his forte.
So then: isThe Living Daylightsunderrated?
The film is enjoyable without ever really capturing the imagination.
Dalton is a little unlucky: Connerys other four successors all enjoy very strong first outings.
Here, the Moore hangover hasnt entirely worn off.
Today its downbeat tone and classical stylings are very much in vogue.
Back thenThe Living Daylightsrepresented a welcome return to some forgotten haunts.
For the first time in years, the franchise was taking itself seriously.
Out with the pantomime; in with the espionage.
Welcome aboard, Mr Dalton.
Its good to be back.
Best Bit:You are a professional!
Pushkin pleads for his life.
Bond weighs his options…
Worst Bit:Khaista: Bond calls Kara beautiful in Afghan.
Final Thought:Felix Leiter appears for about two seconds.
And hes played by John Terry!
Sadly, JT doesnt help Bond burn the bridge.
This article first appeared onDen of Geek UK.
