>meaning, watch the Sean Connery ones first. He was the first
>Bond ( George Lazenby doesn't count), and most would agree
>that he was the best.


although connery was the best (for now), no way you can say lazenby doesn't count (he was the second *official* bond, not the first, btw). at any rate, 'on her majesty's secret service' is a top 5 bond film, IMO.


>
>Then watch the Roger Moore Joints. He was a fairly decent
>bond, and the majority of his Bond flicks are tolerable.
>There's a few eye rolling moments, though.
>


i used to think the same about moore. i recently rewatched a lot of the moore bond films and i just can't take his portrayal anymore. way too hammy.


>
>HERE'S where the wheels come off. Timothy Dalton wasn't too
>bad as Bond, but the plots started to get REALLY hokey.
>



i liked dalton a lot. 'license to kill' was pretty good, and benecio del toro is pretty good in it as well. 'the living daylights' was pretty meh.


>Pierce Brosnan was GREAT as James Bond. But the plots are
>AWFUL. They just camouflaged the bullshit with Product
>placement, shiny gadgets and BIG explosions. That Halle Berry
>shit almost made me swear off Bond films.
>
>"Who sent you?"
>"ya Mama..."
>
>WHAT?!?!?!



you're right, pierce WAS good, but the movies were horrible. the only exception being 'goldeneye'.



>
>Everybody shits on "Casino Royale", but IMO, it was a pretty
>good re-start to the franchise. I'm not really sold on Daniel
>Craig yet, but I'll wait until the next one.
>
>


uuuuhhhh, you might wanna recheck that. 94% on rotten tomatoes.

i think most people who didn't like casino royale on some level were definitely in the minority.


fwiw, imo the top 5 bond films are:

dr. no
casino royale
from russia with love
on her majesty's secret service
goldfinger