Casino Royale

After the lackluster performance of Die Another Day, and a four year hiatus, Daniel Craig starred in the first Bond film to definitively reboot the franchise, by appropriately adapting the very first James Bond novel: 1953's Casino Royale. This was, in fact, the third time that the novel had been adapted, but the first two adaptations were far from ideal: The first being a one hour television special, and the second serving as a satirical poke at the main film franchise (It stars David Niven, Peter Sellers, and Woody Allen of all people!)

Freed from all of the previous Bond chronology, which had always been loose at best, Casino Royale allows us to see a less experienced, more vulnerable Bond who has just attained his License to Kill / 007 status. Judi Dench remains in the role of M, but almost all of the other periphery characters are not to be seen: This is, in fact, the first of the films to not feature the character of Moneypenny, and only the second in which someone is not portraying Q. Felix Leiter, Bond's long time CIA ally, does eventually appear, played by the excellent Jeffrey Wright, in what is to be their first meeting of the new franchise, harkening back to their first encounter on film in Dr. No.

Needless to say, Casino Royale was a huge shot in the arm for the character of Bond, featuring a grittier, more believable tone while still having the grandeur audiences have come to expect. Much of this is due to the machinations of the film's primary villain, Le Chiffre, played with an excellent mix of menace and desperation by Mads Mikkelsen, who is racing to replenish the bank accounts of the various shadowy organizations he serves as a banker. None of Le Chiffre's associates are slouches by any means, and each set piece, from the stunning parkour inspired chase scene near the opening of the film, to the gun fight amidst the sinking city of Venice fails to disappoint.

Also notable is Eva Green's turn as Vesper Lynd, the British Treasury agent assigned to supervise Bond as he enters into a high-stakes game of Poker in Montenegro: She is, as a Bond girl, obviously very beautiful, but also far more nuanced than many of the women who have played opposite the fictional British spy, eventually serving as the main catalyst of Bond's transformation into a far more cold-hearted, emotionally distant spy we all know, culminating with the famous line: "Bond . . . James Bond."

I was truly taken aback by this film, expecting to see more of the same as had come before, and if there's any disappointment I have about it, it is that the filmmakers steering the franchise failed to capitalize on what could have been a very interesting series of remakes of older Bond adventures. What would an updated Live and Let Die have looked like? Or a Moonraker that adhered more to the far more realistic plot of the novel? Or a Diamonds Are Forever that dealt with Bond tackling the Diamond trade from Sierra Leone to Las Vegas without the orbital space laser? Alas it was not to be, as Casino Royale was followed by a number of sequels that eventually sought to reboot the reboot, and transform the new Bond into . . . Well, something we had already seen. Ah well.

But how good were the rest of them?

2: Skyfall. There's actually a lot to admire about Skyfall, with its plot revolving around its villain's understandable vendetta against M (and by extension MI6), though I can't help but be reminded of its similarities between Raoul Silva and Goldeneye's Alec Trevelyan: Both are former MI6 agents who were left to die, resulting in facial deformities, who are using their insider knowledge to their advantage . . . But that's forgivable in the face of all of the satisfying sequences, and its choice to show us a Bond who is quickly losing his edge, needing to resort more on his wits than superior strength, speed, or accuracy. We also get to meet the newest incarnations of Q and Moneypenny, and its got one of the best Bond opening theme songs I've heard in quite some time. All of this said, it's hard for me to wrap my head around the film's ending, which essentially brings us full circle in terms of the look and feel of M's office, while weirdly harkening back to Bond's earlier adventures that this version of Bond never experienced: The Aston Martin from Goldfinger returns, as does Bond's limited arsenal of pistol and radio transmitter. There's also some CGI Komodo Dragons that took me out of the movie just long enough to ruin my suspension of disbelief, but seeing as Bond falls seemingly to his death at one point and somehow survives in spite of having been shot, I suppose I should look more closely at my priorities.

3: Spectre. I wouldn't say that Spectre is a bad entry into the Bond franchise, especially compared to some of the poorer entries we've seen up to this point, but seeing as it wraps up the Daniel Craig years, it did leave me wanting more. I think it's main blunder was in trying to bring back one of Bond's most reoccurring villain as someone who has had a lifelong grudge against Bond due to . . . Adopted sibling rivalry? The Ernst Stavro Blofeld of the earlier installments was motivated purely by business, a napoleon of crime comparable to Professor Moriarty. Here we have another man with a chip on his shoulder, who has been deliberately trying to make someone else's life miserable via massively elaborate schemes. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. as an organization only really pays off if we've been dropping clues, obvious or subtle, so just throwing it in at the last minute can't help but feel cheap. I guess it was fun to see Mr. White again. Just felt like we went out on a fizzle.

4: Quantum of Solace. This movie is quite forgettable, which is especially disappointing seeing as it dovetails directly from the ending of Casino Royale. After a promising car chase, we find out that an environmentalist entrepreneur named Dominic Greene is somehow connected to Mr. White's organization, Quantum, who is helping a Bolivian generalissimo stage a coup in exchange for seemingly useless desert, but oh, it's not useless! Greene is going to create a monopoly revolving around fresh drinking water! And there's oil involved somehow? Personally, this film reminds me of The Living Daylights. There's just so many different interested parties, reversals, and new characters who are introduced before summarily being killed that it all becomes something of a blur. Coming off of a much better film also seemed to take a lot of the air out of the tires of a franchise that could have chugged along successfully for at least five more installments rather than three, though I have to assume that did have something to do with the personal real life beating Craig seems to have taken during every single Bond film he starred in. It's just a shame we didn't get to see more.

So, this wraps up my rating of the Bond series. Only time will tell whether or not we'll be seeing someone else step into the shoes, though seeing as there's been twenty-four of these (not counting the off brand Casino Royales, or the actually rather fun Never Say Never Again), I'd say it's a safe bet that someone will be saying the words, "Bond, James Bond" in our near future.

GoldenEye

Six years after the release of License to Kill, James Bond returned to the big screen in the form of Pierce Brosnan, who had formerly been best known as private detective Remington Steele in the television series of the same name. It also marked the beginning of the tenure of Dame Judi Dench in the role of M, which she would continue to appear as until 2012's Skyfall.

As the first Bond film to take place after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the film's plot revolves around the changing nature of the British spy game, with James Bond initially being portrayed as a man whose methods (on full glorious display in its 1986 prologue) are obsolete now that the cold war era has come to an end. Of course, it's not long before its clear that new threats are rising from the ashes, as well as from the ranks of MI6 itself, in the form of the film's villain, Alec Trevelyan, who was once 006 to Bond's 007. If only someone had told him that he was being played by Sean Bean, maybe he would have seen his eventual horrible demise coming from a mile away . . .

In comparison to Brosnan's other appearances as Bond, this one easily tops them all, featuring spectacular action set pieces (the tank chase scene in St. Petersburg always sticks out in my mind), numerous characters whose actors manage to make their cartoonish theatrics charming (Famke Janssen as the sadistic Xenia Onatopp, Robbie Coltrane as the ex-KGB officer turned Russian gangster Zukovsky, and Alan Cumming as the slimy hacker Boris Grishenko are particular stand outs), and Brosnan's performance as Bond sets a tone that comfortably falls somewhere between the more humorous Roger Moore and the grimly serious Timothy Dalton. I do think it's a bit odd that the title of the film is shared by Ian Fleming's estate on Jamaica (as well as an aborted Allied plan during WWII that Fleming also formed), but as stated in the entry regarding Timothy Dalton's tenure, by now they had run out of Fleming stories to adapt.

Attempting to reboot a series that has gone silent for six years is certainly a challenge, and the fact that this remains in my own top five list of Bond films certainly says something about its effectiveness.

That said . . .

2: The World Is Not Enough. The quality of Brosnan's other appearances as Bond dropped precipitously after Goldeneye, and the fact that I'm listing a film in which Denise Richards plays an American nuclear physicist named Dr. Christmas Jones as the second best should tell you something about the quality of the other two. The plot is something of a muddle involving a plan to blow up a nuclear submarine in order to sabotage a Russian oil pipeline in the Bosphorus, but the film's two villains (Sophie Marceau as the at first seemingly innocent Elektra King, and Robert Carlyle as Victor "Renard" Zokas) do enough heavy lifting to keep one engaged. This film also marked the last film in which Desmond Llewelyn portrayed Q, sending him off with true affection.

3: Die Another Day. Upon a second viewing, Die Another Day is actually not quite as atrocious as I had recalled, but it does suffer from two deep flaws: First, at the end of the day (ahem), it's nothing more than a remake of Diamonds Are Forever, complete with a villain undergoing a complete facial transplant and an orbital laser gun, but without any of the campy fun that made that film a joy to revisit. Secondly it features some of the most egregious effects I've ever seen in a Bond film to date. And I'm including Moonraker in that company. The scene during which a clearly CGI Bond is surfing always makes me groan. And, an invisible car? Ugh. That said, there's a decent sword fight and it is interesting to see an opening title sequence that actually advances the plot (dealing with Bond's imprisonment and interrogation by the country of North Korea.) For the most part, however, its derivative and forgettable.

4: Tomorrow Never Dies. This was an odd choice for last place, especially because I find it far more memorable than both The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day combined, but in spite of the appearance of Johnathan Pryce as the megalomaniacal media tycoon Elliot Carver and Michelle Yeoh as the Chinese spy Wai Lin, this film falls rather flat for me, especially due to the lack of any real menace from its villains, in particular Gotz Otto as Carver's Euro-Trash henchman who is an expert at . . . Chakra torture? I did find the concept of an updated full blown villainous William Randolph Hearst creating a war to sell papers to be be interesting, but here it's far too obvious to capture my attention for longer than the opening title song being sung by Sheryl Crow. I do enjoy the bit with Vincent Schiavelli playing an assassin with a medical degree, but again, it's a scene played more for laughs than for suspense, and in a spy thriller that's not usually what to shoot for.

Stayed tuned for the grand finale (for now), of Daniel Craig!

License to Kill

The second (and last) film of the Timothy Dalton era, License to Kill marked the first instance of a Bond film that did not borrow its title from an Ian Fleming Novel- though those familiar with his works will easily spot the similarities between this film and the plot of Live and Let Die. As if in reference to this, Felix Leiter is portrayed by David Hedison, who previous appeared as Leiter in the film of Live and Let Die.

The main strength of this film, by far, is the concept that Bond has gone rogue from MI6, and is pursuing a personal vendetta against a brutal drug lord who, early on in the film, orders the slaying of his best friend (the aforementioned Felix Leiter, who has been appearing in Bond films since Doctor No.) Cut off from his normal allies, Bond is forced to infiltrate his enemy's organization and take it down from the inside by manipulating the paranoid villain into killing off "traitors." It's fun to watch Dalton using his brains more than his brawn, and a welcome change from the predictable formula of the Roger Moore era.

This is not to say that Dalton doesn't have his share of physical obstacles to overcome, and the actor seems to have toughened up since The Living Daylights (more on that in a bit.) Dalton certainly saw Bond as a far grittier man that Roger Moore, and he's in top form here as an assassin who is wavering on the edge of burnout as he struggles to get the job done. This more realistic acting style, in point of fact, was a large part of the reason Dalton was not called back for a third entry as Bond (audiences found him grim and humorless), but given the legacy of Roger Moore, it's not surprising that Dalton would want to re-imagine the character on his own terms.

At any rate, License to Kill is a decent entry in the Bond series- though I have to admit that it's far from my favorite. One glaring flaw, in my opinion, is the fact that the villain's headquarters (a drug lab / secret lair disguised as a new-age meditation retreat) literally goes up in flames as the result of a single localized fire. What, the place didn't have a sprinkler system?

So, let's take a brief look at Dalton's first outing: The Living Daylights.

Frankly, I have never been able to make much sense of the plot this film. It starts off simply enough- Bond helps a defecting KGB agent (named Koskov) cross the border between Slovakia and Austria. During his debriefing, General Koskov reveals that the new head of the KGB has issued orders to kill all enemy agents. Then the MI6 safe-house that Koskov is being held in comes under attack by a blond killer posing as a milkman (complete with exploding milk bottles), and Koskov is abducted, presumably by the KGB. Bond is then ordered to kill the head of the KGB in retaliation. Simple, right?

Wrong. What follows is the one of the most convoluted series of twists and reversals I have ever seen in a Bond film. And while it's easy to understand that Koskov's defection and re-abduction were both staged to create tension between East and West, what's less clear is the motivation of the film's villain, a megalomaniac arms dealer (played by Joe Don Baker) who plans to, um, I'm not entirely sure. Late in the game there's talk of stolen Soviet funds being used to purchase opium from Afghanistan, and the climax mostly revolves around Bond trying to blow up a plane full of said opium (and then, later, defuse the same bomb when he becomes trapped onboard,) but by the time we get to that point there's been so many disparate elements introduced that it becomes painfully hard to care about what's going on. The sheer amount of faked assassinations and face turns that have previously occurred have compounded on each other so heavily that the film falls flat on its face.

Though not as boring as, say, Thunderball or The Spy Who Loved Me, The Living Daylights is definitely one of the weaker Bond entries- and it doesn't help that it is sometimes hard to take anyone very seriously. While Dalton's attitude is right, there's a distinct feminine anima about the man that undermines the idea of him as an uber-macho, one man wrecking crew. Ah, well.

Tune in next time for contestant number five: Pierce Brosnan!

Octopussy

Though widely considered to be amongst the "worst" Bond films, I frankly find 1983's Octopussy to be- it's groan-worthy title aside- far and away the best of the Roger Moore era entries.

Moore was, and still is, the man who has starred in the most Bond films, outranking even Sean Connery with his record of seven films in a row. Moore's films were marked by a more light-hearted approach to the character, and he portrayed Bond as a sly playboy who always seemed to have the right gadget (or car) for the job. He still did his fair share of hand-to-hand combat throughout the series, but in general he was a less gritty Bond than his predecessors, and was often considered "clownish" by critics.

Octopussy seems to directly address this issue in two ways. First, it takes a more "back to basics" approach than some of the previous films, focusing more on fisticuffs and gunplay than gadgetry. The climactic train and airplane fight sequences are impressive to say the least, but also fun is the fight sequence in which one of the henchman is wielding an improbable yo-yo saw blade.

Secondly, the film embraces the tongue in cheek nature of the Roger Moore era with a sly wink, making no apologies for moments such as when Bond is swinging on a vine and the Tarzan yell is played over the action, or when Indian tennis player Vijay Amritraj (playing an MI6 agent named . . . Vijay) finds himself fighting a goon with a tennis racket. It also cleverly subverts the humor when the most serious moments of the film (the opening chase scene through a dark forest, and a frantic attempt to stop a nuclear weapon from going off) revolve around men wearing clown costumes- in the second case, it's Bond himself in the makeup and goofy clothes, and yet the suspense in both sequences is very real.

The plot too has the advantage of being remarkably believable given the film's quirks: a Russian general plans to force nuclear disarmament by detonating a atomic bomb on a U.S. airbase, an act that will likely be perceived as a nuclear accident rather than a terrorist act. His henchmen are a highly organized smuggling organization that utilizes a circus as a front for their activities, and so the planned detonation has the added horror of killing hundreds of innocent children to boot.

Maud Adams, in her second Bond film (she previously played Bond's love interest in The Man with the Golden Gun), is a perfect foil of Roger Moore's Bond- unlike many of Moore's previous lovers, Ms. Adams holds her own, and the two make sense as a couple. It's also nice to let her be in a position of power rather than just the bad guy's main squeeze. Speaking of the bad guy, Louis Jordan's Kamal Khan is a delightful mix of Count Zaroff from the Most Dangerous Game and the kind of guy you expect to be touting fine wines on television. Ah, the French.

Octopussy, like any Bond film, has some flaws- perhaps the greatest being that the plot is in many ways similar to that of Goldfinger, right down to the mostly silent bodyguard crushing a set of loaded dice in his palm (much harder, I would assume, than crushing a golf ball.) It also has Bond acting at his most juvenile at points (exhibit A: Bond zooming a camera in and out of a woman's ample decolletage- c'mon Bond, what are you, in fifth grade?) and certainly the film isn't going to be winning any awards for a realistic depiction of India (between this film and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, I gained a healthy aversion to Indian food that lasted until I actually saw what it was really like.) And yet it's easy to forgive these imperfections for the simple fact that in comparison to most of Moore's other entries, this one is a lot of fun to watch.

Seriously, if you only watch one Roger Moore film, make it Octopussy. You won't regret it.

So where do Roger Moore's other flims stack up?

2: Moonraker. This is a hilariously campy film, with Bond in spaaaaaace, Richard Kiel's Jaws character falling in love with a pig-tailed blonde girl, and a CIA agent actually named Dr. Holly Goodhead. But, you know what? Much like Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker is actually a fairly entertaining entry in the series (I've always enjoyed the fight in the Venetian glass museum) and there's enough legitimate tension and menace to make it extremely watchable- I mean, a girl gets hunted down and killed by a pack of dogs. Dark enough for you?

3: For Your Eyes Only. Though somewhat pedestrian, For Your Eyes Only pulls in the reins on the cartoonish aspects of the Bond franchise (extremely necessary after Moonraker), and presents a straight up spy vs. spy scenario, with Russian and British agents duking it out for a nuclear submarine tracking system, and a Greek smuggler and a vengeful woman caught up in the proceedings. The film does suffer from the extremely late seventies early eighties vibe it projects, I mean, has there ever been an uglier Bond car? I was actually kind of relieved when it blew up.

4: The Man with the Golden Gun. Bond faces a dark reflection of himself in the form of the sinister assassin Francisco Scaramanga, who is played by the grimly charming Christopher Lee. The plot is hampered by a weak plot to control, wait for it, SOLAR POWER (DUN DUN DUN), but there's enough deftly handled sequences to maintain legitimate suspense- Scaramanga's funhouse is a lot of, um, fun. And let's not forget Herve Villechaize's turn as the henchman Nick Nack. Nice to see him doing something besides yelling "Dee plane, dee plane!"

5: Live and Let Die. This film does have a very good boat chase, the very sexy Jane Seymour, and an impressive stunt in which Bond (actually a stuntman) runs over the backs of LIVE alligators- for real, watch the making-of for the out takes- but really, that's about it. The fact that just about every person of African descent is an agent of the villain is cringe inducing, though I have to hand it to Geoffrey Holder (the man who portrays Baron Samedi,) he's pretty fascinating to watch.

6: A View to a Kill. Moore. Was. Too. Old. There's not much else to say, though it has some plusses- Christopher Walken's the villain ("James Bond . . . fell . . . into a bucket of cream . . .") and Grace Jones has a turn as his memorable henchman. But seriously, there's a fistfight in the middle of the film where Bond's opponents are aged up to make Moore look more spry (one of them has a really bad wig) and it's just . . . bad. Even Moore himself later regretted doing this film due to his age. At least he's realistic!

7: The Spy Who Loved Me. So one thing that surprised me when I was looking at other people's rankings of the Bond films is how often this one is touted as "the best" of the Moore era films. Um, guys? It's clearly, by far, the worst. Why? It's boring, that's why. Why is it boring? Well, for one thing it's pretty much an unimaginative remake of You Only Live Twice, only replace space capsules with submarines. Secondly, for most of the movie there is only ONE henchman that Bond is contending with: Richard Kiel as Jaws. It gets old after their second encounter. It also could have benefitted from a more legitimately antagonistic relationship between Bond and his Russian counterpart, agent Triple X (sigh), and I just didn't buy their romance. And, in the end, it all comes down to Bond shooting the villain. Did I mention that there's way too much Bond vs. Jaws in this film? I did? Good.

Tune in next time for Timothy Dalton!

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service was the only Bond film to feature former model George Lazenby, who ironically accepted the part after a twenty two year old Timothy Dalton (who was destined to eventually play Bond in the late 1980's, more on this later) passed on the role and . . . it's a rather odd film. Right off the bat, it openly recognizes that the character of James Bond is no longer being played by Sean Connery with the line, "This never happened to the other fellow." The line is a direct reference to the fact that the main love interest of the film, played by Diana Rigg, has run off from her would be rescuer rather than fallen into his arms- one of the film's other main oddities, and something that, indeed, would have been strange in the Sean Connery era, but I feel that it greatly weakens Lazenby's portrayal to so bluntly draw attention to that fact.

To put it even more bluntly, this film's main strength is undoubtably the incredible performance delivered by Diana Rigg as Tracy di Vicenzo, the woman who eventually captures Bond's heart- quite a feat given the characters previous philandering ways. She is by far one of the most engaging and intelligent of all of Bond's love interests, and ultimately she's a far more interesting character than Bond, with real sense of depth and personal loss. Unfortunately, all of this is clouded by the regrettably misogynistic tone of the film, which suggests that all she needs to be made right is a strong man to make love to her . . . yeah, that fixes everything, right?

That said, Lazenby isn't bad- he's touchingly vulnerable at times, and makes us feel legitimately scared for him- something Connery often seemed incapable of doing. And, for once, Bond FINALLY decides to go undercover in order to track down Ernst Stavro Blofeld, and assumes the role of Sir Hilary Bray- a somewhat bumbling genealogist whom Blofeld hopes will legitimize his claim to a noble title. Still, this is rather strange, given that in the last film, You Only Live Twice, Bond and Blofeld met face to face, and thus would certainly recognize each other. Part of the explanation for this lies in the fact that the novel of On Her Majesty's Secret Service directly followed Thunderball, and the novel of You Only Live Twice completed the so-called Blofeld trilogy. Whatever the case, the filmmakers decided to ignore this incongruous series of events, and just forged on ahead as if this were a standalone Bond adventure.

There are some great action sequences in this film, the most stunning of which is a prolonged ski chase in which Bond loses one of his skis- the stunt work here really is stupendous. Also notable is the fact that both primary villains escape from this film alive- a rarity in Bond history. And the heartbreaking ending truly is one the great moments of honest pathos in the Bond series. But for all of its high points, On Her Majesty's Secret Service also suffers from its lows. For one thing, the plot is utterly ludicrous: supermodels are being brainwashed into becoming Blofeld's "angels of death", who will spread biological agents designed to destroy agriculture throughout the world. Um, hey, Blofeld, you know you could send out some goons with vials, right? No need for supermodels, and no need for brainwashing. Oh, wait, I guess this movie needed more sexy women for Bond to sleep with . . . sigh. Also, did I mention the whole, all Diana Rigg needs is a man to fix her up plot line? I did? Well it's still crap.

Stay tuned for Roger Moore. Lots and lots of Roger Moore.

Goldfinger

1964's Goldfinger is arguably the quintessential Bond film, creating the basic formula that has been repeated ad nauseam to the current day. Certainly, Dr. No and From Russia With Love (more on them later) contain many of the common conventions (colorful villains, Bond the baccarat player, underground lairs) but they don't have that familiar Bond feel to them. Watch the opening of Dr. No, for instance, with its abstract dot opening, followed by "three blind mice" sequence. Does this feel like a Bond film?

At any rate, Goldfinger is where it all solidified- strange, perhaps, in that it is the only early Bond film to not deal with the organization called SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion in case you were wondering what the acronym stood for), an organization that was used by the filmmakers of the Bond films to avoid offending the Russians, as well as tie the films together. No, this Bond film has the balls to make the villain a bullion dealer (named Auric Goldfinger, oh very subtle Ian Fleming, I suppose the girl's going to be named Pussy Galore- oh, wait, she is) who is working with the Red Chinese to detonate a dirty bomb in Fort Knox, an act designed to 1: throw the economy of the United States into complete disarray, and 2: drive up the value of Goldfinger's own stockpile of gold. It's a plan that makes complete sense- hell, the way in which it is executed even seems plausible. Not to say that the plot of, say, From Russia With Love is implausible, but it's certainly one of the better ones of the entire series.

Connery too seems to have grown more comfortable in the role, and I think this is certainly his best work as Bond, and Oddjob is perfect as the muscle to Goldfinger's brains. The showdown between him and Bond in Fort Knox is unforgettable, though I actually tend to prefer the fight between Bond and Red Grant in From Russia With Love. Goldfinger himself is an astoundingly great Bond villain- vain, petty, and ruthless, he's been the template for nearly every megalomaniac Bond has faced since. Dr. No was certainly memorable, but you got the sense that he actually kind of cared for his employees- his base has some very practical safety features, and he wasn't just murdering people out of hand. Goldfinger, on the other hand, goes through the trouble of explaining his plot to the mafia-types who've provided the materials crucial to the raid on Fort Knox, makes them an offer, kills the one man who refuses, and then kills the others anyway, because, hey, why not? And, I mean, the guy even had an entire room built for the presentation!

And, sure, there are things that are patently ridiculous- the first being the fact that Bond has somehow been able to wear a well pressed dinner jacket under a wetsuit, or Oddjob's hat that can somehow cut cleanly through the neck of a stone statue, or the fact that someone living in the 60's would ever be able to get away with the name PUSSY GALORE, but these elements feel right in the world of the film, and help us shut the more critical parts of our brain down for a bit so we can enjoy the movie.

So, Goldfinger makes the top of the list for Sean Connery. Now let's take a look at the others.

2: From Russia With Love. A close contender for the top slot, From Russia With Love benefits from a decent plot (the villains want to kill James Bond and steal a Russian decoding machine in the process), and a number of memorable villains- Robert Shaw as Red Grant shines, but Lotte Lenya as Rosa Klebb is definitely my favorite. And let's not forget to mention that this is the first appearance of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the cat stroking mastermind who has been parodied oh so many times (Dr. Evil, Dr. Klaw, and Greenback from Danger Mouse spring immediately to mind.) And, for my money, Daniela Bianchi is by far the most attractive of the early Bond women. Ohhh, Chames. All of that said, there's something about the film that just doesn't feel like a Bond movie- this is, in fact, part of its charm, but it made all the difference when comparing it to Goldfinger.

3: Dr. No. The first Bond film, Dr. No had to do a lot of heavy lifting to get the series off the ground, and though it's still very watchable, it's also a little dull by comparison to its descendants. Still, there's some beautiful sets, tight dialogue, and a lot of iconic moments- Honey Ryder striding out of the ocean in her white bikini, Dr. No crushing a metal statue with his metallic hands, and, of course, Sean Connery delivering his trademark statement: "Bond . . . James Bond."

4: Diamonds Are Forever. I know what you may be thinking. "Diamonds Are Forever?! Dave, you've gone mad!" But hear me out. Yes, the plot is patently ridiculous. Yes, Sean Connery probably should not have returned to the series. Yes, the climax of the movie is so similar to an Austin Powers film as to make it hilarious. But think about this: compared to the remaining films on this list, how much more entertaining is Diamonds Are Forever? You've got to admit that Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are fascinating to watch, Tiffany Case is a legit Bond girl, and Charles Gray makes for an extremely entertaining Blofeld. It's worth watching if only to see the part where Bond stumbles upon the filming of a faux moon landing, and the astronauts attack him without breaking character.

5: You Only Live Twice. This one does have a spectacular finale, and finally reveals the identity of SPECTRE's number 1 man, played by a delightfully bizarre Donald Pleasance, but frankly the movie is something of a slog. You could easily lose a whole hour of the film and not miss it. There are so many moments when the villains could have simply killed Bond by shooting him, but keep him hanging around it's laughable. "What are you, feeding him?"

6: Never Say Never Again. Though not officially a part of the Bond series, being an independently produced film that was the result of a protracted legal battle, 1983's Never Say Never Again is actually a pretty decent film all things considering- Connery is still believable as an aging Bond, and there's some nice action sequences. Unfortunately, however, it's also a remake of 1965's Thunderball, and just feels wrong somehow. And consider the incredibly anti-climactic underwater finale.

7: Thunderball. Thunderball is, for lack of a better word, boring. The reason for this is quite simple: the film has no built in sense of mystery or suspense, something which a spy thriller, um, needs. But no, for some reason the screenwriters thought it would be a good idea to show the villains discussing their plans, and following that up by revealing how they're going to go through with them. Then, well, they go through with them. Then we're stuck with an hour and a half of James Bond trying to figure things out that we ALREADY KNOW. You'll be on the edge of your seat, believe me. Oh, no, wait, you won't. Frankly, my favorite scene of the film is the SPECTRE boardroom scene, where you know one of two guys is about to buy it, but you don't know who. Because of, you know, suspense. I preferred a scene of mostly expository dialogue to an entire film supposedly full of action. Not a good sign. Also, the finale feels like it goes on forever. It's the final fight of the film and I kept thinking, god, when is this going to be over? Boo, Thunderball, boo!

Tune in next time for the George Lazenby year.

Bond . . . James Bond

Since the release of Dr. No in 1962, there have been twenty three films revolving around the fictional character of James Bond, a member of the British secret service with a license to kill- I mean, c'mon, you know the guy, right? There have been TWENTY THREE James Bond films. Christ, I just checked and there's a 24th coming out in October of 2015!

So here's a question that's been bandied about over the years: who was the best Bond? Well, that's something I'm about to explore in my upcoming blog series, which will essentially be an examination of the best six films of the six men who have played James Bond (and no, I'm not counting the David Niven Casino Royale) as well as a ranking system of the ones that didn't make the cut. Once we've reviewed all six films, we'll compare and contrast and have our winner.

So, stay tuned for our first entry! The Sean Connery era awaits!