it is done

in only 3.5 months, i watched the chronology of james bond. for the most part, it was extremely enjoyable ... tho, there was a time in the roger moore stint that made me weary, which was expected.

in 007 film, there are a bunch of elements you can count on:

• an insane villain bent on world domination (or economic destruction ... you know, that kind of thing)
• a double-cross
• puns in the face of doom
• skiing, boating and/or scuba diving
• a fancy watch
• exotic locations
• exotic women
• gambling
• sharks!

for me, tho, the real quality of the film relies heavily on the quality of the bond. here's how i rank the leading men and, therefore, their respective movies:

1. pierce brosnan
2. george lazenby
3. sean connery
4. timothy dalton
5. roger moore
6. daniel craig

there's actually a very small margin separating 1-4, and depending on my mood they can change. however, 5 and 6 are solid.

... and i know what you're going to say: "you're just saying you didn't like daniel craig because he has blonde hair and blue eyes."

in the words of my grandfather, i say: "rubbish!"

i didn't like daniel craig because he didn't open his mouth when he spoke and he displayed all the zest and charm of a stop sign. he would have been awesome if james bond was more like ... i don't know ... the terminator. or robocop. i definitely vote for him in the robocop remakes - altho he'll probably have to out audition peter weller for it, and runs an excellent chance of losing anyway.

bond is an action hero, but he's more than an action hero. he is also more than a suave bottle of charm, which no one told moore. had someone put him and craig in a blender, they would have ended up with a pretty decent bond. but that's not actually necessary as long as brosnan is around.

next up: the muppet show season 1!