What happens at the end of Casino Royale? - Answers

So in April, I decided to watch every Bond film from "From Russia with Love" to "Spectre". I had already seen Dr. No for a english assignment last year and while I enjoyed the film didn't feel the need to rewatch it. So here are my thoughts:
Dr. No - A great start to the Bond franchise that is introduces a lot of the classic elements, including "Bond, James Bond", Girls and cold kills. The film is quite quaint by modern standards but is still fun to watch. I will say the second half of the opening is just plain odd though, why after the James Bidn theme am I hearing bongos?. I will say that I wish we saw more of Dr. No than we do in the actual film, as, but otherwise Jospeh Wiseman gives a great performance. Overall 7.5/10
From Russia with Love - Okay this one just got better as it went along. While the pre-title sequence isn't bad we don't actually get to bond for a bit of the film and it does drag a bit. I also love that in the second movie we're already trying to play with the fact that Bond loves to sleep with women. I also find it funny that Robert Shaw looks awfully similar to Daniel Craig. Even with that though Red Grant still delievrs a codl performance that leads to one of the best fight scenes in cinema Overall 8.5/10
Goldfinger - I love this one so much. From a great villain to the DB5 to the iconic imagery and the brilliant henchman in Oddjob. This film gets nearly everything right and I have very few problems with the film as a whole. My only qualm is the barn scene where it appears that Bond may have raped Pussy galore, but that really didn't hinder my enjoyment very much as all. Where my love for the films was truly cemented for the film was for this quote "Did you expect to me to Live?" "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die".Also my favourite character is introduced in this film: Q. The way Desmond Lleweyn plays this character is perfect and I really did not want anyone to replace him. Goldfinger is almsot flawless 9/10
Thunderball - This is where the franchise really went downhill for me. What really annoys me about this film is the first half hour is a complete waste of time that we didn't need. We could have easily started just at scene where Bond is meeting with leaders of the world and M and it still wouldn't affect your understanding of the film. Even after that, so much of the film just feels like wasted potential. The only good part of the film are probably about half the girls, Sean Connery and the one Q scene. The Underwater scenes are just boring and I didn't care. Altough this film does have on e the best title sequences. This will seem harsh to some but honestly this film gets a 4/10
Casino Royale(1967) - Yes I made sure to watch "every" James Bond film (although that wasn't really worth it in the end). What the fuck happened in this film. Honeslty this film is just random scenes together stuck together with a plotline. I remeber David Niven playing some game with Ursula Andress( If I remember correctly). I remember Bond's daughter stuck in a mze like berlin in the cold war. I remember peter sellers going up against Le Chiffre. But the films comes together like a Sandwhich made of Jello and Glue. It's awful. But it's also hilarious to think about. Honestly the story behind the film is more interesting than the actual film. Oh and how lazy is that ending, my God. 3.5/10
You Only live Twice - Alright I knew going in to this some of the films would be dated but I thought that was going to eb about the attitudes towards Women. I did not expect Sean Connery to be badly put in makeup to make him "look Asian". Also the final "Blofeld" reveal is somewhat disappointing, not necessarily bad just somewhat disappointing considering how he was bulit up in From Russia with Love and Thunderball. Although I honeslty didn't have a problem with Connery's performance that much. While it's not great, it wasn't enough to have an impact on my feelings towards the films. Overall not bad. 7/10
On Her Majesty's Secret Service - Alright this one is hard for me. I didn't enjoy the film very much but it's clearly great. Why is it great? Well it gave me Captain America: Civil War which is a film I sometimes don't enjoy but know it is a great film regardless. I was probably just in the wrong mood for this film. As for Lazenby, he's not bad but I think he might have just needed a bit more direction on what to do. Although while it's a gutpunch I love the ending. I'll just give it a 7 now, but I might come back to this one.
Diamonds are Forever - This one is quite weird. From Blofeld to drag to having scenes set in Vegas to Connery weirdly looking too old depsite only being in his 40s. But it can also be a sort of fun weird as well. But then it's not great either. Also I blame this film for the stupid moon landing conspiracy theories. 6.5/10
Live and Let Die - This is a decent start to the Roger Moore Era. Moore feels like Bond but not like Connery which I think was a slight problem with Lazneby trying to be a little too much like Connery. Dr. Kananga is a good villian and Jane Seymour as Solitaire is one the best bond girls. Also Sherriff J.W Pepper is silly but helps us understand how the Roger Moore Era will feel. Overall 7.5/10
The Man with the Golden Gun - "THAT FUCKING SLIDE WHISTLE". Seriously though the slidew whistle over the car flip represents the whole film. Good Idea that were unfortunately done wrong due to horrid execution. However, this makes the film one of the best to enjoy ironically. Scaramnage and Nick Nack are probably the only things done well in the film. Just for ironic enjoyment I'm willing to give this film a 6/10
The Spy Who Loved Me - For the longest time this was my favourite Bond Film. It had my favourite Bond girl in Anya, One the best henchmen in Jaws, Moore at the top of his game, and one the best ending scenes battles in all of Bond. My only problem comes from Stromberg, who's just a bit one note. Overall 9.5/10
Moonraker - I had bad experience watching this one. I was expecting all of it to be set in Space but only the 3rd act actually is. This meant that during the first 2 acts I was just waiting for them to go to space and when they did, I wanted them back on Earth. I really didn't like the space scenes because the blasters reminded me too much of Star Wars. The film itself is probably the most over the top it's ever been and hell, looking back I realise while it was incredibly stupid it was fun seeing a double taking pigeon and the other nonsensical happenings in this film. Honeslty I'll give this a 6.5.
For Your Eyes Only - What happened in this one? This isn't like Casino Royale '67 where it's incredibly confusing but it's more just boring. I really don't remember much at all. I don't remember many of the stunts or any of the bond girls really. Hell, I have no idea who the villain actually was. The only thing I remember is the brilliant opening sequence. 4/10
Octopussy - This one's similar to FYEO for me only stupider. unfortunately though unlike Moonraker where it jump the shark fairly soon to get you ready for the sillier scenes later on, the clown scene at the end I was completely unprepared for looked and just came off as incredibly dumb. Also Octopussy could've been a great villain but no, it's someone else who I didn't care about. 3/10
Never Say Never Again - The first act is weird in that it can't decide if it wants to be classic Bond or a spoof like CR '67. The second act is classic Bond(although they play videogames at some point. What?). I don't remember the 3rd act at all and I got completely lost which really ruined the film for me. 4.5/10
A View To a Kill - This is like TMTWGG for me. The only real good parts are Mayday and Christopher Walken as Zorin. We really should've had Dalton by this point. In fact I think Dalton should've started with For Your Eyes Only. Moore I don't think gives a bad performance but he was clealry too old for the role by this point. As a film it's one of the sillier ones, but at least it wasn't too boring 5/10
The Living Daylights - What a breath of fresh air. It was nice to have a bond film I enjoyed again after some many I didn't like. I love the 3rd act with the both Bond hanging on for his life with the plane and the end fight (although it could give you a seizure if you're epileptic). Timothy Dalton is James Bond. All the other actors were playing a version of James Bond. Dalton is that character personified to a T. The Living Daylights gets a 7/10
Licence to Kill - This was very different. What is easily the darkest bond film (maybe except, Casino Royale '06) is also one of the better bond films. While I enjoyed TLD dalton's bond fits better in this sort of film. I love the plot is literally Bond on a revenge mission rather than just filling out M's orders. Also Q in more than just one scene, is bliss. I Love Q, not only for Desmons Lleweyn, but also because his warmth helps to say "Yes it's dark, but it's still Bond and we can still have fun with it". However the film does almost crumble under all of the different plotlines but unlike NSNA I was still able to get back into the film despite that. Also, It annoyed me that Felix survived the film. It would've been better and more believable if both Felix and his wife had died. LTK gets a 7.5/10
Goldeneye - I don't have a lot to say about this one. Just a great Bond film in it's own right with a great villain and some of the best Bond girls. Although I wasn't big on Brosnan at first though. To me he seemed too generic and didn't really have his own spin to Bond. But he grew on my over time. Besides Goldeneye is still a great film otherwise. 9/10
Tomorrow Never Dies - Again, not a lot to say about this one. Decent Bond flick, that while not as good as Goldeneye is still worth your time and worth checking out at least once. The best part of this film is the villain by far, being a version of Rupert Murdoch(hate that slimy bugger). 7/10
The World is Not Enough - Man I don't have a lot to say about the Brosnan films. I really don't know what to think of this film. The opening scene is great but otherwise I find the film to be another average Bond flick that is a little worse than TND. 6/10
Die Another Day - This one's similar to TMWTGG and AVTAK for me where's it's incrediby stupid but you can have a laugh at it. John Cleese is decent as Q but not as good as desmond lleyweyn. Unlike otehr silly bond films some of the stupid shit can be seen as downright offensive and taking the piss such as the parasailing on waves scene and the end villain literally being Robocop. But the film is somewhat saved by incredibly silly dialogue that is easy to laugh at. Overall 5/10
Casino Royale - First Act is good. The second act is one the best scenes in cinema I have ever seen. I was just invested in that Poker Scene as I was in the Portals scene in Avengers: Endgame if nor more so in the Poker scene. The torture scene is brutal but works perfectly. However once Mr White shows up the films kind of falls apart. This because you could easily assume that Mr White was CIA(Like I did) and just though that was that. While Mathis still had to be dealt with, (whihc QoS messes with for some reason) the film could've just ended with Bond and Vesper. But no we had to have this silly third act which feels like it was only there to kill Vesper. But since the first two acts are still really good and the third act doesn't ruin the movie I'm still willing to look a the film positively. Overall 8/10
Quantum of Solace - I saw this one fairly recently and I still don't remember what happened. I think Greene was the villain and Bond was on the run from MI6 but honeslty that's about it. I will say that in the first half however, Daniel Craig somehow managed to not be Bond and instead come off as top Gear host. The ending really ruins this film however. Well more the gunbarrel itslef. YOU MAKE WAIT THE ENTRIE MOVIE FOR THE GUNBARREL ONLY FOR IT TO THE BE THE WORST GUNBARREL EVER DONE" Ugh. 4.5/10
Skyfall - What a stroke of genius this film was after QoS. One the best Villians in Bond history,Daniel Craig on top of his game, some stunts that are a bit silly but still keep the realims in check and making M the central focus was brilliant . Also while Desmond Lleweyn Will always be my favourite, Ben Whishaw is a great Q. I know this film has some silly plot holes the film is so damn good you just learn to not care about them. I could gush on and on about this film, but this has gone long enough as it has. 10/10 Best Bond film
Spectre - So I'm listening to Bon Jovi's "You give Love a bad Name" and it has the lyric "You Promised me Heaven and gave me Hell". That sums up my feeling towards the films perfectly so I'll just leave at that. 3/10
TLDR Ranking
1.Skyfall

The Spy Who Loved Me
Goldfinger
Goldeneye
From Russia With Love
Casino Royale
Live and let die
Dr. No
Licence to Kill
The Living Daylights
You Only Live twice
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Tomorrow Never Dies
Moonraker
Diamonds are Forever
The World is Not Enough
The man with the Golden Gun
Die Another Day
A View to A Kill
Quantum of Solace
Never say Never Again
For Your Eyes Only
Thunderball
Casino Royale(1967)
Octopussy
Spectre

from the first episode of the NTTD podcast, Bond in Context.

The journey for Bond in Casino Royale is that he's an orphan, he's loyal to Her Majesty, but basically he doesn't really understand life - and then he meets this other orphan and they fall in love and he suddenly apprehends what life could be like actually. You know, if you're an orphan and you've never really known a loving environment and then suddenly you could have your own little - life. And so he understands what life is about and then it's taken away because he discovers that she was always deceiving him (even though she may well have actually loved him) but he dons his armour - I mean it's a line in the film, but that's when it happens and he says "the bitch is dead now" which is the last line of the novel, and it was very important to us that that be in the film. So he now understands that this is real life, that people do fall in love - [but] he can never allow himself to do that because it made him vulnerable and he cannot go around the world protecting that, and so finally in Spectre he meets someone and he starts to think, maybe I can walk away from this for love.

I thought the point about Bond and Vesper both being orphans was an unusual thing to bring up - which, while that was obviously a line in the film, I never thought that that was meant to be a crucial aspect of why they fell in love with each other. would love to know if anyone else felt similarly after hearing this on the podcast.

so i rewatched the Craig films this week and came up with a theory that reconciles all of the sins of SPECTRE in my head-canon.
here we go.
MULTI-BOND THEORY
before i begin i wanted to preface the Multiple Bond Theory. this posits that all Bond films are mostly interconnected, as "James Bond 007" is a code name passed down agent to agent over the years. if this were true, Sean Connery's Bond would have lived in the same universe as Daniel Craig's Bond. i'm not sure if the previous Bond films ever directly contradicted this theory, but i liked going with it in my head-canon.
PROBLEMS WITH SPECTRE
from Casino Royale to Skyfall, the Daniel Craig movies were a neat little trilogy. CR served as “Bond Begins”, opening with his first mission. Quantum was a direct continuation of CR, picking up moments after the last movie ended. Skyfall finally presented him with a formidable arch-nemesis. then at the end of it all, we finally see the classic Bond set up - he meets M in his office where Moneypenny sits at the secretary desk, the music swells, and we close with the classic gun barrel sequence.
the best thing about all of this was that it had no strings attached to the prior Bond movies. it could serve as a prequel for any generic Bond story (accepting that Judi Dench was fan-service casting, carrying on the tradition of Q). OR it could serve as a sequel under the Multi-Bond Theory, leaving Daniel Craig as the successor to Pierce Brosnan, and Judi Dench as the same M all along - which worked for me.
then they had to do SPECTRE and unravel it all. since SPECTRE introduced elements we've seen before, it definitively kills the Multi-Bond Theory. then there's general gripes other have mentioned: it overdid the old Bond tropes, something that the previous Craig movies used sparingly. the concept of Blofeld as Bond's brother was a step too far. the concept that all of the previous villains were connected seemed unnecessary. and Swann over Vesper? really? well, i guess.
KINCADE
going back to Skyfall, i learned of a rumor that the elderly Scottish man at Skyfall Manor (Kincade) was originally conceived to be played by Sean Connery. if they had done this, it would have stirred the Multi-Bond Theory in such a fun way. it could explain why Craig's Bond privately owns Connery's DB40 from Goldfinger. and in this universe, there would have been a scenario where a retired Sean Connery would have met and shared stories with a childhood Daniel Craig.
WHEN CRAIG DIED
so during the final battle at Skyfall, Bond falls into a frozen lake. we see him fight a guy underwater, and then light a flare to try and find an escape. however, no opening is visible and we never actually see him come out of the lake. instead, he just shows up at the last minute to save M, and then we cut to London with all of the set up stuff i talked about to close out the trilogy.
so my head-canon is that Daniel Craig died in that lake, and Silva won by killing M and himself in the church. that's where Skyfall really ended. everything we saw from the lake onwards are just a dying man's oxygen-deprived brain trying to reconcile what's happening to him. he's incorporating his past missions, his family history, and Connery's old Bond stories all into one "life flashing before your eyes" moment. that's why SPECTRE, unlike any Bond movie before, starts with the title card "THE DEAD ARE ALIVE". this is a dead man's fantasy.

One of the most critically acclaimed Bond films. It truly revived the franchise in a way that it had not been since the Connery days and while I strongly disagree with the comments about Craig being the best Bond since Connery, he debuted under the best circumstances. Casino Royale gets a lot of praise from the media for being “different” from other films while some fans deride it for the same reason, calling Daniel Craig’s Bond an emotionless thug. The latter group is somewhat correct, if referring to Quantum of Solace. The former group, is a bit overblown in their praise, forgetting that changing too many things could run the risk of losing what made something great in the first place, which happened in some areas with Craig’s subsequent films. In my opinion, however, Casino Royale is not a “deconstruction” of the Bond films that stripped back the gadgets, girls, and humor that defined the films, but a reconstruction that stayed true to the original novels and simply improved upon the many great things its predecessor did while getting rid of the fluff.
Looking back, Connery started out perfectly in his first two films. He added his own charm and wit to the original character, making for a perfect lead actor while keeping the more dubious aspects of the character. Unfortunately, Goldfinger marked the beginning of Bond becoming a caricature, a perfectly dressed gentleman who saved the day as effortlessly as he displayed charisma. While some of the original Connery returned in Thunderball, his last two films doubled down on Goldfinger’s success and felt like a pale shadow of his former self.
George Lazenby, despite only appearing in one film, managed to remain unobscured because he appeared in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, a crowning moment for the franchise that stripped back the gadgets, girls (kind of), and humor. Rather strange, considering Casino Royale was adored for doing the same thing, but gets a better reception from audiences (critics and fans have given Lazenby’s film its due for decades now).
Roger Moore, despite the silliness of his films and the decreasing credibility the franchise had because of his age as the films progressed, deserves credit for allowing the films to develop differently rather than just copying the Connery films. Moore could never compete with Connery’s rugged macho persona and instead became more suave and gentlemanly, with even more emphasis on the humor. The franchise had been heading down a path where the films could not be taken seriously and Moore allowed them to embrace it. Say what you want about films like Moonraker, but that was the direction the producers wanted to take and much of how one perceives it is based on how silly or serious they want their Bond films to be, a testament to how Moore allowed the films to vary in tone. For Your Eyes Only, despite not being a particularly strong film in my opinion, stripped back the gadgets, girls, and humor (kind of). Casino Royale gets praise for being more realistic and grounded than Die Another Day, but For Your Eyes Only did the same after Moonraker, albeit to a lesser extent. Moore proved that he could still portray a more serious Bond and the result was one of his best outings. Unfortunately, the silliness still lingered and Bond faced competition from other heavy-hitters in the eighties. While I enjoy Octopussy and think A View To A Kill deserves to exist because of its awesome score and Christopher Walken, Moore should have left earlier.
Timothy Dalton still remains underappreciated by critics and audiences (“Mainstream” media sites still rank his films in the twenties) despite having a cult following among fans. While I am not the most knowledgeable of the novels, I remember enough from the ones I read that Dalton fit the literary version almost perfectly and I still maintain that he is closer than even Craig or Connery to Fleming’s Bond. The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill are both extremely well-done films, that while suffering from a lackluster director far better at executing action than story and poor production values, managed to be the closest in spirit to Connery’s early films. It is rather unfair that Dalton is labelled the “proto-Craig” when he was closer to the novels, a bit too close. One area where Craig is superior to Dalton is the charisma. Dalton lacked the “it-factor” that his predecessors had and while he was not beholden to following what Connery started, the public perception about the larger-than-life Bond hurt his era.
People began rejecting the caricature Bond had become with the Pierce Brosnan era, which had the worst scripts in my opinion. GoldenEye was a pop-culture hit and its legacy as the “only good Brosnan” film was aided by a video game that I would rather go back to than the film itself. It was a well-rounded out film, though I would argue that it is not one of the best since several others were less derivative and excelled in some areas more than it did. Brosnan’s era dropped in quality with films even more derivative than his debut, repeating GoldenEye’s mistake of ultimately wasting interesting plot-points in favor of falling back on the tried-and-true tropes. I still love Tomorrow Never Dies though. The end result was Die Another Day, which saw the producers in the same situation they found themselves in after Moonraker. They had to return to Bond’s roots, and for the first time in its history, truly delivered an almost flawless product that learned from everything the films had done.
Some look back on the pre-Craig films and scoff at them, finding them too cheesy and not serious enough. However, quite a few Bond films were serious and faithful to the source material; they just happened not to do it as well as Casino Royale, with the exception of From Russia With Love, which is the closest in reception to it. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service suffered from a rather lackluster star, who despite the arguments from people such as myself who enjoyed his vulnerability compared to Connery and acting during the ending, hurt the reputation of a great film. For Your Eyes Only set the tone for the eighties films, but still had some of the Moore silliness. The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill also suffered from tonal issues, to a lower extent in my opinion. Dalton gave very committed performances, but the other members of the production were not quite as willing to commit to such a radical change and never went the extra mile like Casino Royale despite delivering two top tier Bond films. Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli finally realized that they had to give the character justice after they restricted Pierce Brosnan from reaching his full potential. The one-liners worked with Connery and Moore, but they did not with Dalton and Brosnan, showing a lack of confidence in their lead actors’ acting ability that they did not with Craig.
Rebooting the franchise meant the producers could start a clean slate, take all the great things of the past twenty films, and put it in one film. I prefer Dalton overall, but Craig’s debut performance was the perfect combination of the literary and cinematic Bond. He retained the cold nature Dalton brought to the role while keeping some of the wit Connery brought into focus. Craig gets some praise for being more brutal with the bathroom opening frequently highlighted, but I think that it rather misses the point of the plot. Bond went from being a reckless, violent gunman to being a cold man who tries to hide it with charm and witty lines, closer in personality to the previous Bonds. It has even been brought up that Vesper influenced Bond’s dress style, going from wearing casual clothes to a three-piece suit in the ending. Bond holding the machine gun in such fancy clothes showed how far he had become since the prologue, no longer wearing his Oxford-styled suits with disdain. Even Craig’s hair, which is flat down throughout the film, is a bit sharper in the end, showing that Bond now puts more thought into the way he appears. Getting some input into the character also meant Craig had the freedom Dalton and Brosnan were unfortunately never afforded. Only Craig could have pulled off the torture scene. Connery and Moore were too untouchable; Lazenby and Brosnan were not the best when it came to dramatic scenes; Dalton lacked the humanity that made Craig more relatable, though their interpretations are two sides of the same coin.
Casino Royale was inspired by the Bourne films and Batman Begins, but still feels very Bondian. The tropes Goldfinger introduced may be gone, but those from the novels and first two films remained. The film adds scenes set in the Bahamas, which reminds one of Dr. No and Thunderball. The Aston Martin DB5 returns, continuing the nostalgia for the Connery era which the producers had been milking since GoldenEye, and exacerbated in future Craig films. Bond’s characterization is also close to Connery’s first two films and Lazenby and Dalton’s films. The film does not feel like a complete departure from its predecessors, but more of a return to form. For me personally, I like the films like From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, which retain the cinematic Bond thrills while adding more depth to the plot and characters.
Craig’s debut set the bar high and I think his follow-ups learned the wrong lessons from it. After being praised for departing from Bond’s roots, the writers went further and made a film that does not feel Bondian at times. Criticize Licence To Kill for being an eighties action film all you want, but the story felt more like classic Bond than most of its predecessors. While Quantum of Solace had great action, cinematography, interesting plot points (holding the water of a country ransom does not seem so funny now?) and had some parallels between Dalton and Craig (Dalton snaps and rejects MI6 to become a rogue agent hellbent on revenge, Craig never actively seeks revenge and despite the brutal moments he finds himself in, keeps his composure), it badly-edited and suffered from an undercooked script. On the other hand, Skyfall is a beautifully shot film that like GoldenEye, has a meandering plot focused on meta-commentary discussing Bond’s relevance. I would still put Skyfall in my top 10, but it is not as original or groundbreaking as the critics would have you think. Finally, Spectre repeated the same mistake the Brosnan films did: fall back on good old nostalgia. This time, the writers tried to fuse a Connery era plot with Craig’s darker aspects, making for a charmless bore with some really misguided intentions (Brofeld, anyone?). I eagerly await No Time To Die like everyone else and hope that it manages to end off the era of one of the best Bonds with a bang.

Despite the common consensus that Daniel Craig’s second outing is a weak entry in the series, I swear this film improves every time I watch it and is deserving of re-appraisal.
Critically panned back in the day, and for mostly understandable reasons – Quantum of Solace had a troubled production in the midst of the 2007-08 Writer's Guild strike, that would result in the feature having the bare bones of a script and, according to Daniel Craig, leaving himself and the director to haphazardly pen scenes, in some cases on the day of shooting.
Such a rushed affair does not bode well for a sequel to what is arguably the most perfect Bond of all-time, Casino Royale. And upon release, I remember leaving the cinema feeling confused and having a bit of a headache. Critics were correct to point out the at times incomprehensible editing choices and rapid cuts that made certain action set pieces feel like an epileptic fit. However, on this rewatch, I found it to be much less of an issue than originally thought and, at the risk of making everyone reading this groan with a cheap, A-Level Film Studies level insight, worked well to convey Bond’s fractured, relentless state of mind following the lingering trauma of Casino’s third-act.
To begin to explain my delusional admiration for Quantum, for a film that had real problems in the writer's room, good god is this a much better script than Skyfall. Characters actually feel human and dialogue authentic – no cringeworthy, half-baked one liners in sight, no obnoxious, fourth-wall breaking references to past glories (yes I'm aware of the Goldfinger painted lady callback, but this works in the context of the scene and doesn’t feel out of place) and most notably, the relationship between Bond, his leading lady Camille and his lovably wry Kerim Bey-esque contact and friend, Mathis, believable and engaging. This does wonders for my investment in the piece and goes a long way to patch up what is admittedly a pretty skeletal plot. Like Casino, the film’s sparing use of dry humour is made all the more effective when it lands and never feels incongruous with the established gritty tone of the Craig timeline; something Sam Mendes would fail to grasp four years later.
I was also impressed by Quantum's willingness as a mainstream movie to showcase a cynical, post-9/11 worldview on foreign policy, the oil industry and Western government officials casually getting in bed with terrorists and despots. Once again in the Craig era, the enemies are not goateed French bastards wishing to eradicate humankind and repopulate the earth exclusively with sexy models – it's sellout politicians enabling dictatorships and poverty profiteers. By depicting not only human relationships but also the nature of 21st century geopolitics in such an authentic light (as much as is possible within the escapist fantasy of Bond), this serves to make the stakes feel all the more real and further justify the harder-edged interpretation of the character and the world he inhabits. Despite this, Quantum never comes across as preachy – it simply treats the disillusioned reality of global affairs and entrenched corruption as a given.
While Mark Kermode humourously viewed the film's relentless action as "teletubbies bouncing around in a padded cell", the meaninglessness of the violence struck me as intentional and if not, certainly worked on a thematic level. As M puts it, this is a broken Bond driven by "inconsolable rage", going apeshit and killing every lead; another body stacked up without consequence and bringing no solace, not even a quantum of the stuff, until the very end. And at this point in time, the concept of Bond "going rogue" was actually still fresh and exciting (fast-forward to the utter clusterfuck that was Spectre and I'm bloody well sick of his cavalier attitude to work).
Dominic Greene may have been consigned to the dustbin of Bond villain history in popular culture, along with Kristatos and Jack Wade’s evil twin from The Living Daylights, and apparently not worthy of having his stock casting photo proudly blu-tacked to the wall of a crumbling Mi6 in a cheap effort to taunt Bond in Spectre, but I don't see why. Sure, he doesn't have some token physical disfigurement and his scheme to deprive Bolivia of its water resources isn't as fanciful as using a big bastard space laser to explode the world's nukes. His evil is one without bells and whistles or Roger Moore era camp – he's a sleazy, slippery little fucker without pomp, who deserved a belly-full of motor oil by the time the credits rolled. This I much prefer than the flamboyant, bleach-blonde and frankly misguided comic relief excuse for a villain we get in the following film.
Quantum’s leading lady, Camille Montes, is easily the second most compelling Bond girl in the Craig era and she too carries her own personal demons – their relationship is one of mutual catharsis and an opportunity to ‘bond’, not over martinis or foie gras in a fancy casino, but rather discussing their dead, unavenged loved ones in a cold cave. In a way, it’s rather nice they don’t shag at the end, signifying he doesn’t view her as a disposable pleasure and has enough respect not to try it on. But to be fair, they do look very sweaty and smelly after that ferocious conflict in the desert hotel, so it would probably have been rude to assume sex was on the cards (if I were in her position, I’d want to get home, have a nice big bath, order a curry and watch a few episodes of Frasier before bed).
It’s a shame they didn’t bring back Camille for future outings, as I would’ve loved to have seen her alongside Craig again, only this time joining forces in a legitimate mission. This is an extra disappointing pill to swallow considering they are bafflingly bringing back that walking piece of cardboard, Madeline Swann (no offence, Léa Seydoux) for No Time to Die – a woman who’s ‘deep’ emotional connection to Bond is entirely predicated on the fact he happened to shoot her dad in the leg with a machine gun in 2006. I mean seriously, Bond and Camille shared more chemistry in five minutes than Bond and Swann in the entirety of Spectre, ugh…
Technically speaking, this film has some gorgeous visuals to admire when the camera very infrequently remains still, it features one of David Arnold’s best scores with some lush, sweeping orchestrals and the occasional ghostly callback to Vesper’s theme, and on a superficial level, Craig looks his absolute best as Bond here with some timeless sartorial choices, before they would start putting him in tiny, skin-tight suits in following adventures. There are some cool arty moments such as the Tosca shootout, that I felt elevated what could’ve been a pretty unremarkable sequence to, forgive the pun, operatic heights.
Onto the bad, which I will keep short and sweet as everyone is already acutely aware of this film’s shortcomings and likes to overinflate. The theme song is a bag of shite and practically devoid of melody, the editing could’ve been a little more coherent at times, the bizarrely unsatisfying “I told you everything you wanted to know about Quantum but the audience probably won’t be interested, so let’s just skip over it” line, and the gunbarrel design looks like it was mocked up in Photoshop in two minutes and should have had its rightful place at the beginning.
In my view, Quantum has aged like a fine wine but critics and many in the fan community were left cold upon release. Unfortunately, I would argue the wrong lessons were learned from these less favourable reactions and the following outing, Skyfall, would serve somewhat as a course correction for the series – swiftly undercutting the new lean, mean and down-to-earth tone for a cartoonish yet mopey pastiche of classic Bond.

-UPDATED, ADDED UP TO QoS-
I've seen the Brosnan/Craig era films but I never saw the originals. Currently watching in order, and here's my rankings. Tell me if it lines up with the general consensus. I'm not including the ones I've seen previously that I mentioned. I'm going to rank them when I rewatch them (Goldeneye, Casino Royale, etc.)
Casino Royale - This movie is too damn perfect. I remember watching it once when it came out and I haven't really seen it in full since then, but this time I got to really appreciate how amazing it is. What made OHMSS so great, this movie did better with the Bond/Vesper dynamic. Bond was as human as he could ever be in this movie, ranging from his flaws to his emotions to his mission. Not a single gadget was used in this movie, yet it didn't need any. Bond was as Bond as he could ever be. The homages to previous films weren't forced either like others (*cough*Die Another Day*cough*). I particularly loved the new take on the barrel sequence being Bond's first kill as a 00 agent, going right into the theme song (which is also one of my favorites). There's nothing too crazy in this film, just a good ol' fashion spy film with some good action sprinkled in between. This was the perfect balance of everything that makes Bond, cementing the fact that this is the best Bond film period. And I have to add this in here - "now the whole world is going to know you died scratching my balls" is quite possibly one of the greatest lines in the history of everything, let alone it being my favorite line in this series. Classic James Bond right there, as with everything in this movie. Being that I'm pretty positive at this point nothing is going to top this, I'm going over the scale here. 11/10
GoldenEye - I saw this movie growing up, so I tried to be as objective as possible so that it didn't take away from the following film with my own nostalgia. But as much as I tried to make the case that this wasn't the best Bond film so far, I couldn't. This movie is phenomenal. It is not only one of the best Bond films, but honestly one of the best action films period. Brosnan arguably had the best debut performance out of all the Bond actors before him. You could actually see the emotional turmoil he had for Alec's "death" and the eventual realization of his betrayal. Sean Bean is the epitome of a Bond villain, portraying 006 with perfection. Xenia is arguably the best Bond henchman ever, let alone being a henchwoman. Boris probably the best comedic relief of the series as well, and let's not underrate Gottfried John's performance as General Orumov. An absolute superb showing from everyone involved, in a plot that exemplifies Bond's strengths and weaknesses and highlights the theme M alludes to of Bond being a relic of the Cold War. Natalya wasn't a bad sidekick either, being able to hold her own throughout. The fact that they had to run with a plot completely void of Fleming's influence turned out to be a miracle that it ended up actually saving the franchise. Forgive me if any nostalgia may have gotten in the way of reviewing this, but I can't argue against it being the best so far considering it contained so many "bests-of" of the series itself (006,Xenia,the surrounding cast). Might have to go back and play the videogame when everything is said and done. 10/10
OHMSS - Without a doubt the best film up to this point so far. Great plot and chemistry between the actors. Best Blofeld imo, and so far the best Bond girl. You actually get to see Bond's emotions for the first time, and probably the most down to earth version of him. Loved the setting as well. Lazenby is criminally underrated and wish he stuck around. There's a lot of this movie that I can't really put into words how great it is. Just watch it yourself and you'll see why. 10/10
The Living Daylights - Holy crap, this was an amazing film. Dalton arguably nailed the first impression better than the ones before him. Maryam d'Abo put up an amazing performance as well. This was a film where the girl finally can hold her own and do some ballsy stuff, and actually saves Bond's life a few times. The film was action packed, but it also had some great espionage scenes throughout making this a true Bond film. Nothing crazy, just a few gadgets that are used sparingly and in ways that pay off. To be quite honest, it came really close to dethroning OHMSS. The one thing OHMSS has that sets it over the edge is seeing Bond's human element at his most vulnerable. The chemistry between Lazenby and Rigg was a bit better as well, but nothing to overshine Dalton/d'Abo's performance. Another one of those underrated classics that don't get enough mention, along with the following film after this on the list. Just a superb film through in and out. 10/10
For Your Eyes Only - I've never seen anyone put this movie on a pedestal before or even give it the amount of praise some of the other films received. But wow, this was a hidden gem and just an awesome standalone film, even if you forget it's James Bond. Another movie with great chemistry, albeit I wish Melina's actress could act better. But at least she made for a very competent and awesome Bond girl. It's awesome to see a girl in these films that can handle their own and not have to rely on Bond for everything. Julian Glover is an awesome villain too. Roger Moore was at his peak here imo. I love this movie. 10/10
Goldfinger - I see why people love this film. You got the entertaining villains. Bond's gadgetry really shines here, and it doesn't become overwhelmingly ridiculous like in later films. There's some great dialogue too, so even in the scenes with zero action you still are entertained. Connery was at his peak here and never quite matched it again. Honestly nothing left to say that hasn't already been said about this film. I wasn't entertained by it as my top two though, but probably the closest one. 10/10
The Spy Who Loved Me - There's a noticeable dropoff imo in how much I was entertained by the top three and this film. Still, it's a great film and it has the campy charm of the Roger Moore era while still maintaining a realistic approach. I wish Anya shined more in this film. The first half it had me believing she would be Bond's match but in the 2nd half she clearly played 2nd fiddle to everything and I was disappointed by that. The action scenes were awesome, although the ending was quite anticlimactic. Honestly a lot of this movie has lost potential, but it makes up for it with everything else. Also Jaws. 9/10
Octopussy - Wow. This blew away my expectations, all things considered since this movie was panned heavily by critics and what I thought was the general consensus among Bond fans. This is actually a great film. There was a lot of cliche moments and some cheesy quips by Bond and company, but that aside the movie kept me entertained all the way through. Another one of those realistic plots, this time returning to some nice Cold War action. I mean, aside from the ridiculous Octopussy cult but it's a Bond film so you kinda sort of have to expect that. It also threw me off a few times. From the beginning I thought General Orlov was going to be the big bad, but turns out he was just sort of a pawn for Khan's money making scheme. I appreciate that sort of twist, along with the good amount of memorable henchman in this film. Maud Adams was much better this go around than in TMWTGG as well. And as hilariously ridiculous Bond in a clown suit was, I've sort of grown to appreciate that sort of charm from the Moore era. As long the movies don't focus on these types of antics the entire time (see: Moonraker), it's good for a laugh in-between all the seriousness of the movie. Also Q gets some field time, which is awesome. 9/10
Thunderball - Less campy than Goldfinger and back down to earth like the earlier films, which isn't a bad thing because I actually prefer those types of Bond films. But it sort of drags on. There's some decent action here as well, like the underwater fight scene and Bond infiltrating Largo's villa. But aside from that, way too much water and way too much running around doing seemingly nothing. If they polished the movie a bit more and cut down on some scenes, noticeably the beginning at the rehab and the parade scene...this could have been a fantastic film, because the entire cast is awesome. Loved Largo as a villain and Leiter's portrayal as Bond's sidekick. Domino was one of my favorite Bond girls while watching this (RIP Claudine Auger). Fiona was a pretty awesome femme fatale. Overall still a great movie, just could have been executed a lot better. 9/10
Quantum of Solace - I liked this film a lot. I knew going in it wasn't going to be as good as Casino Royale, and that was okay. A lot of people thought this movie was disappointing, but I couldn't disagree more. It was a satisfying conclusion to the Vesper saga left on a cliffhanger of the previous film. The parallels between Camille and Bond seeking revenge for the deaths of a loved one played out quite well in this movie, allowing Bond to see a reflection of himself in her and eventually giving him the strength to not kill Vesper's boyfriend who turns out to be a member of Quantum abusing women in foreign intelligence to get information. That and also the countless times he needed to be reminded to not kill everybody he sees by M, it all coming together as a growing process for him to become more calculated in his actions instead of shoot first act later. That being said, this movie suffered a deal from the writer's strike. I sincerely believe with more time and dedication into finishing this movie proper, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace would have been an amazing 1-2 punch that could probably have gone hand-in-hand on most people's best lists. The movie seems very rushed at times, and at other times the pace is fine. It's a weird up-and-down roller coaster of driving the plot that kind of takes away from an otherwise good film. However knowing that they did the best they could work with given the writer's strike, I'm willing to give some of that a pass, because as I stated before the plot and themes themselves were fantastic. Overall still on the top level of Bond films, just disappointing we didn't get what we should have gotten. 8.5/10
Licence to Kill - This was a fun film. James Bond going rogue to avenge Felix Leiter? Count me in. Absolutely loved the fact Q got a lot of field work in this film. There were a lot of notable henchmen as well, including a young Benicio del Toro who I didn't even recognise until about midway through the movie. Robert Davi stole the show though, what an underrated villain for the series. There's a lot of good action scenes balanced with some classic espionage throughout as well. All of that being said, it doesn't set itself apart really from the aforementioned films. Dalton was a step down from his previous film, almost acting as if he was already through with the series. A shame, considering how great he portrayed Bond in TLD. The cheesy love triangle between Pam and Lupe was sort of annoying too. And the Scanners bit with Krest's head exploding was honestly so ridiculous that it made me forget I was even watching a Bond film for a few. That's the issue with this movie was that it was more like Die Hard than it was James Bond, which isn't necessarily a bad thing from an entertainment standpoint but in comparison it just comes off as a B-level action movie. This movie could have been executed a lot better, considering the talent and the original plot to work with. 8/10
Live and Let Die - Okay, I'm sort of a sucker for the Blaxpoitation genre and honestly as ridiculous as it was to pair Bond with the height of that era, in a vacuum this movie is actually pretty entertaining. Yaphet Kotto was awesome in this film as the main villain, but so were his henchmen. There's some awesome action scenes in this movie too, and most of the movie is still in the realm of believability so that's a plus too. But that's where this stops. Dear god this movie probably didn't age well in terms of tact. Rosie Carver was the first black Bond girl and she was...yeah she was pretty awful and dumb. The occultism stuff was cringy, especially considering that it doesn't even line up with the region. A lot of the dialogue coming from black characters were clearly written by old white guys that never actually heard a black person speak. Then there's the sheriff...hoo boy. The racial aspect aside, Solitaire's character could have been written a lot better. She shows signs of independence towards the middle of the film but then completely relies upon Bond for everything. Also rigging the deck was probably the 2nd worst thing Bond has ever done, and that's only because he borderline rapes Pussy Galore in Goldfinger. So yeah, forgive me for pandering but a lot of this movie's shining moments is weighed down by its antiquated garbage. Also never bring magic back into this franchise ever again please. All in all, it's still a great movie and I was highly entertained throughout. 8/10
The World is Not Enough - This movie started out strong. Strong enough potentially to be a top Bond film. You had an interesting setup with Elektra possibly being Stockholm syndrome'd by Renard, with Sophie Marceau doing a superb job at portraying a deceitful lover of Bond. Then you had M having a personal involvement in the whole case, showing the consequences of being the "queen of numbers". There's a lot of underlying themes here that callback on previous films, which I like. But then Christmas Jones happens. What the hell was Eon thinking? Denise Richards hands down has to be the worst actress to ever be a part of this franchise, and her "acting" really shows. None of what she says is believable at all and it's hard for me to believe she's a nuclear physicist. And she's not really useful at all if you think about it, because we know from past films Bond can diffuse a nuclear bomb quite well (TSWLM, Octopussy). So clearly she was just thrown in as a deus ex machina for Bond to have another lover while having an excuse for having a sidekick for the mission. Makes me think they wrote her in last minute because dumb test audiences didn't like that the only Bond girl was a villain, which I'm pulling out of my ass which is as equally comparable to how they wrote the 2nd half of the film. Yeah, Zukovsky just so happens to have a nephew as a submarine captain in the one city they need to blow up. Bullion just so happens to work for Elektra and be his chauffeur, as if hiring him wouldn't throw up any red flags in the first place. Let's hand a clock that clearly fell off the floor because of M back to her and that clock can easily be manipulated into a GPS signal with a locator device. There's probably other instances of lazy writing and lucky coincidences that plagues the 2nd half of this movie, but like its script I'm too lazy to recall them. And then we get the infamous "I thought Christmas only comes once a year" line to end the movie, which might actually be enough on its own to drop the score of this movie. Overall if it wasn't for the first half this movie would be a lot lower. It would be maybe a 5 if not for that, but overall it's a 7.5/10
Moonraker - This movie gets a lot of hate. And I understand why, because it is so ridiculous and is just a complete 180 from the beginning Connery days of the franchise. Trust me, I get that. But I'm willing to toss that aside in interest of actually seeing if I would be entertained by this movie and honestly, I was. It is so over the top fun and I appreciate that in terms of separating you from reality. If the film's goal was to be entertaining that maintains a level of insanity that doesn't get in the way of the experience, it pretty much nailed it. I'm not going to rank this movie any higher because it's still a Bond film, and it wouldn't be right to start reviewing this movie as if it was a separate entity entirely. So that's where the faults come in. This isn't James Bond. I don't understand how it got to this point when you look back at what Bond was supposed to be. The campiness is out of control, and while as I mentioned before I can appreciate that as a standalone film, it also just makes me feel like I'm watching Austin Powers. Goodnight is a cool character in premise, but her actress was so terrible I couldn't really get behind her. Drax was sort of cool I guess. The sacrificial lamb trope with Corinne was getting predictable at this point, though. In conclusion, it's an entertaining movie but they should have just focused on making an entirely different film separate from Bond. At least then it wouldn't have any expectations in the way, for better or worse. 7.5/10
A View to a Kill - This is one of those movies of the franchise they have all the right pieces for a great film, and it ends up so poorly executed. Did we really need to spend practically half the movie on a horse ranch? Why is 57 year old Roger Moore banging every girl he sees? What the hell was the point of May Day going to bed with him? And did we need an extra 10 minutes dedicated to a KGB agent attempting to steal a tape from Bond by seducing him only to fail and have it never get mentioned again? And as stupid James Bond going to space was, and seeing him in a clown suit...somehow him dangling off a firetruck and a blimp was more painfully cheesy and absurd to me. Perhaps it was just the fact it was just added in for meaningless action scenes and to pad the movie time, I don't know. And Midge is such a terrible actress and I really wish she wouldn't scream Bond's name so much. So why is this movie higher than the others? Max Zorin. He is hands down my favorite villain so far and I really wish he had more screen time and psychopathic moments. His backstory is cool too. Had I been in charge of the film I would have kept him alive for a future film, like make him a new Blofeld or something. Oh well, this movie is better than yellowface. 7/10
You Only Live Twice - This is when things are sort of getting bad. The first half? I actually loved it. Aki was pretty badass. I loved the action throughout the film so far and it had some great spy scenes as well. And then Aki dies and the film turns into Bond in yellowface blowing up volcanos with ninjas and some random Japanese girl in a bikini who serves zero purpose. I have nothing really left to say at this point, aside from thanking Donald Pleasance for giving us Dr. Evil. 7/10
Dr. No - I appreciate this film a lot. It sets the foundation for Bond and is a superb introduction into his character. Dr. No is an excellent villain and Honey Ryder represents the embodiment of what everyone is accustomed to expect of a classic Bond girl. From a historical perspective, this film means a lot to the franchise in so many ways and I can respect that. That being said, the movie is boring. When the film starts to pick up at Dr. No's island, it still seems like things just take forever. And while it finally pays off with the awesome back and forth between Bond and No at the dining room table, it just turns anticlimactic once Bond escapes his jail cell and eliminates No. The way he goes out is great, it's just I wish there was more interaction between the two. Also did they really need to kill Quarrel? 6.5/10
The Man with the Golden Gun - How did they mess this up so badly? The concept of the world's greatest assassin dueling against the world's greatest spy in a cat and mouse tale is such a superb idea. But instead we got Bond following Christopher Lee around for an hour and a half doing practically nothing aside from getting his mistress killed and fixing the mistakes Goodnight kept making. Also Goodnight sucks, I want to make this clear right now. She's not even in the realm of she's so bad she's funny. Like I'm convinced a producer thought having a dim-witted blonde at Bond's side was a great idea so they wrote her to be as dumb and offensive as possible. And kudos to them, because they pulled it off. Too bad it took away a lot of good from this movie. Like Christopher Lee's performance, arguably the best Bond villain so far in terms of acting. And Nick Nack, who made for a memorable henchman. But yeah, that's about it. Also the sheriff is back. Dear lord they botched this movie so bad. 4/10
From Russia with Love - Come at me with your pitchforks. I've seen this movie get placed as one of the best, if not the best Bond films of all-time. I've seen even a video game get made after it, which is crazy because it was so many years later. People always seem to answer the question of who Bond is to them and they say Connery in FRWL. And I can sort of understand that if you're there from the beginning or are really invested into the franchise, you can probably go back to this film and pick out the bits and pieces that make Bond so great and how Connery nailed it. I'm not arguing against the fact that this movie was important, because it was. But I'm going to be brutally honest - this movie is bad. I've said before I prefer the realistic down to earth take on Bond, but this one was a little too much for me. While the scene between Connery and Shaw on the train is probably one of my all-time favorite scenes of the franchise, most of the movie's dialogue is just drawn out banter between Bond and whomever about stuff that ultimately doesn't even matter. The pacing is so slow and it hardly ever seems as if Bond is accomplishing something. Tatiana goes from an interesting Russian spy to a completely dependent lover in less than two scenes. It's hard to even tell if she's putting up an act or if she really just failed her mission from the get-go and fell for Bond. I guess you could say that would mean she's putting up the deception well, but it's executed pretty poorly if that truly is the case. The gypsy camp part was a useless scene to pad out the movie and throw in some obligatory action to keep the viewer entertained. Red Grant could have been the Russian James Bond but really just stood around for most of the movie doing nothing until he actually meets Bond and then gets killed, so there's more poor execution on that end. The movie finally picks up at the end with the helicoptecar chase and the speedboat chase, but by then it's too little too late. I'm sorry guys, but this movie sucks. 4/10
Die Another Day - This movie is bad. And it's not even atrociously bad like the following films on this list. It's just such a forgettable movie, directed as if it was supposed to be a Fast and Furious film. No really, this movie may as well be part of that franchise. From the ridiculous slow motion and quick fast forward effects you'd see in every action movie of the mid-2000s, to the insanity of some magic gene splicing that can turn a North Korean colonel into an English playboy that can destroy the world with a solar beam while James Superbond drives around in an invisible car surfing on waves and avalanches in his spare time. You'd think with all this ridiculousness it could have some a value as a "so bad it's good" type of movie, but it really has none of that going for it. Because to be fair, the acting isn't too terrible. People gave Halle Berry shit for this movie but honestly she did fine considering what she had to work with. It's the most cookie cutter action film you could pick out from that era, with the littlest regard for it being a Bond movie. So with that in mind, it just comes out to be incredibly mediocre with zero replay value whatsoever. The only reason it's not as bad as the next two films is because the first 30 minutes of the film is pretty promising, along with there actually being a cohesive plot this time. 3/10
Diamonds Are Forever - This movie actually upsets me. One because it originally was supposed to be a revenge film for Lazenby's Bond to avenge Tracy's death. Two because Lazenby decided to leave and Irma Bunt's actress died, so rather than recasting her they decided to just throw Tracy's death into OHMSS as opposed to the intro to this movie and then recast Blofeld for the hell of it. And lastly because Connery puts a stain on his legacy as Bond by completely phoning it in with his performance here. That pain aside, there's no redeeming qualities about this movie at all. Tiffany Case is a Bond girl that barely passes an IQ test, so at least she's better than Goodnight. The movie was poorly edited and cut some many times you can barely follow the plot at times, then again who cares. Blofeld has clones now? So we're supposed to believe the real one was the one who got smacked around by Bond in a crane at the end of the movie? Which by the way, was so ridiculous I ended up laughing not for its intended effect but because of having it settle in how bad this movie was. Mr. Kidd Wint are just...ugh. Is there anything good about this movie? Yeah, Kanye West sampled the theme song and made one of his best songs. That's about it. Screw this film. 1/10
Tomorrow Never Dies - It was really hard for me to pick between DaF and this film as the absolute worst Bond film, but I had to settle for this one. Who wrote this movie, a 13 year old? The dialogue is absolutely terrible. All the forced cheesy innuendo aside, nothing in this script is believable regarding any sort of dialogue between any of the actors involved. The worst of it all was between Brosnan and Hatcher, which I'm willing to absolve their lack of chemistry with the fact that I am convinced a robot must have written the lines in their scenes together. Then there's the ridiculous plot. Yeah, it is scarily realistic now that the media can control so much of the public, but I'm talking about Pryce's plan. It is absolutely absurd to think his "reign" over foreign powers would last anything longer than a week tops. Unless we're living in a world where the entire global intelligence of every country has the IQ of the person who wrote this script, you know what forget it. This review was as physically exhausting as trying to get to the end of this movie was. I'll make this quick - Carver is the worst villain ever, Stamper is the worst henchman ever, and Wai Lin might one of the best Bond girls ever but not even she can save this from being the worst Bond film ever. Wai Lin was awesome enough to save this from being an absolute zero, though. 0.5/10
I'm onto Octopussy next, which I'm well aware of the hate it got. I also know Moore is close to a 60 year old clown in this movie at some point. I'm hoping it at least exceeds the very low bar the movie's reception has set for me.
~~Maybe I'll watch Never Say Never Again instead to save myself some possible misery.~~
~~E1: View to a Kill is next. I'm aware of this being another mediocre Bond film but I'm kind of excited to see Christopher Walken and May Day. It can't be that bad, could it?~~
~~E2: That was disappointing, as expected. Onto Dalton.~~
~~E3: Blown away by this one. I hear LTK is a noticeable decline from Daylights but hopefully it isn't too bad. Dalton was amazing so I'm looking forward to his 2nd and last entry.~~
~~E4: Killed three movies in a row with this one. Amazing, good, and awful. Onto TWINE.~~
~~E5: TWINE's done, onto Brosnan's last film and from what I remember, one of the worst Bond films ever.~~
E6: Almost done, just have Skyfall and Spectre left. The top is pretty much cemented as is the bottom. We'll see where these last two land.

I don't know if I can publish this article here, it might be deleted due to copyright, but here it is.
Eva Green on coping with crippling anxiety: ‘I’m very shy… I wish I was a silent movie star’
Gavanndra Hodge25 APRIL 2020 • 5:00 AM
I meet the actor Eva Green on one of those strange, early March days when we are yet to truly understand the implications of coronavirus – when people still hug each other and say, ‘Whoops, sorry!’ afterwards. Which is exactly what Green and I do when she arrives at Clifton Nurseries, a chic garden centre and café near her north London flat. She’s dressed in a black woolly hat, huge black puffer jacket and sunglasses.
‘Let me show you something so scary,’ she says, showing me a passage on her phone from Dean Koontz’s 1981 thriller The Eyes of Darkness, which seems to predict the pandemic with eerie prescience, appropriate passages circled in red.
Meanwhile, Green’s mother, who lives in Paris and to whom she speaks daily, has been telling her not to shake hands with anyone, not even to leave the house. Yet here we are, sitting perilously close, ordering fresh mint tea, ready to talk about Green’s new film, Proxima, directed by César-winning French screenwriter and director Alice Winocour.
In the film, Green plays French astronaut Sarah, who is preparing to depart for a year-long mission. But despite the hi-tech robotics and presence of Matt Dillon, Proxima is not your average space movie; it is not concerned with distant galaxies or alien life forms. The film is about Earth and the things that tether us to it. Sarah is an astronaut, but she is also a single parent; her daughter Stella played by the excellent 10-year-old actor Zélie Boulant.
‘It is a love story between a mother and a daughter,’ says Green. ‘And these people who are going to the International Space Station, all the way to Mars, they will lose sight of the Earth. It is like a self-sacrifice, like a death.’
In preparation for the role, Green undertook an arduous fitness regime with a Russian instructor in Cologne. ‘He was so harsh, treating me like a real astronaut. In the end he was so rude and mean that it became funny.’ She also spent time at astronaut-training centres, like Star City in Kazakhstan. ‘That was my favourite thing. I felt like I had entered a sacred realm.’
The film is a departure in many ways for Green. In Proxima, she is make-up-free, dressed mostly in overalls, dealing with the struggles of a working mother. It is beautiful and solemn – and her performance has been described as a career-best.
Green is probably most famous, though, for her glamorous role as Vesper Lynd in the 2006 reboot of the James Bond franchise, Casino Royale, featuring Daniel Craig as 007. At first she didn’t want to audition for the part (in retrospect, she says she was being ‘pretentious’), but when she read the script, she changed her mind. ‘I thought it was a very strong role. But I didn’t like when they said “Bond girl”. I would say, “I am not a Bond Girl, I am a character.”’
She loved making the film, though: ‘The set was joyous. Barbara Broccoli is amazing, one of the best producers I have ever worked with. I wish they were all like her: passionate, kind, caring.’ Green admits that she has had less pleasant experiences on set. ‘Of course, a lot. It is hard; it is the anti-glamour.’
Eva Green was born and raised with her non-identical twin, Joy, in Paris. Her mother, Marlène Jobert, was a successful actor who gave up her career for her family, and her Swedish father, Walter, is a dentist. It was, Green says, a very ‘Parisian bourgeois’ upbringing. She attended drama school in Paris, followed by a 10-week acting course at Webber Douglas Academy of Dramatic Art in London. ‘It was very intense, in a good way. But because my English was not very good, when I had to do Shakespeare, it was very hard. Often I couldn’t even understand what the teachers were asking me to do,’ she says.
Back in Paris, Green won parts in a couple of plays, but had such a bleak time, getting stage fright and ‘having blanks’, that she considered giving up acting. It was, she says, the Italian film director Bernardo Bertolucci who saved her. She was in her early 20s, when she heard about a Bertolucci audition. ‘I was obsessed with him, obsessed with Last Tango [in Paris]’, she says.
The audition was relaxed, and soon afterwards she was offered the lead role in The Dreamers, an adaptation of a Gilbert Adair novel – sexy and incestuous, and suffused with the riotous politics of Paris in 1968. ‘My mother told me not to do it,’ Green says. ‘She was afraid that I was too sensitive, that he [Bertolucci] was going to be quite violent with me,’ she says, referencing the fact that the actress Maria Schneider had found the making of Last Tango in Paris emotionally challenging. ‘And that it would destroy me for life. I was like, are you kidding? It was the chance of a lifetime.’
The film, which was released in 2003, was a critical success, but did more for Green than simply launching her career. ‘Bertolucci gave me faith in myself. He was like a little angel.’ After seeing her performance, Jobert agreed that she had made the right decision; but the rest of Green’s family found the film’s explicit intimacy shocking. ‘When you are not in the business and you see something so sexual, it is too brutal. I mean, it was horrific for me when I saw it. But I hate watching myself anyway.’
She hated the ancillary elements of being an actor, too, not least the red carpet. ‘I remember my first time. The Dreamers was about to come out. It was an Armani event, and [Martin] Scorsese was at my table. I said to my agent, “I can’t go, I have nothing to tell him!” But then [Giorgio] Armani took me aside and said, ‘We are going to do the red carpet!’
Green still doesn’t enjoy ritzy events, which she says is down to a lack of confidence. ‘I am very shy. It is a handicap. I am never good when there are lots of people. It is a thing from my childhood, I can’t even explain why.’
It is something that she has learnt to deal with, though, by taking herself off to the loo to do breathing exercises to calm herself, and wearing elaborate gowns (her favourite designer is Alexander McQueen) and melodramatic make-up as a kind of armour. ‘It protects me. Because otherwise it is very violent for me,’ she says. ‘I just wish sometimes that we didn’t have to talk, that we were just silent movie stars.’
And here is the conundrum, one that Green herself has said she does not quite understand: why someone so shy (although, one-on-one, drily funny, thoughtful and open) would do a job that is so emotionally exposing, both on screen and off it.
In a 2017 radio interview, Green’s mother revealed that Harvey Weinstein had attempted to physically assault her daughter when she was a young actor in a hotel room in Paris. ‘She managed to escape, but he threatened to destroy her professionally,’ said Jobert. Green has never been keen to go into details about the event, but she is happy to say how relieved she is that Weinstein has been sentenced to 23 years in prison. ‘I am grateful that justice has been served. I praise the brave women who risked so much in coming forward, not only their careers and reputations, but the pain that they have suffered in having to relive being raped in order to put this sexual predator out of harm’s way. Their courage has changed the world.’
This change is something that Green is living through – on the Friday before we meet, she attended the French César awards where Roman Polanski, who pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor in the US in 1977 but fled before sentence was passed (and with whom Green made the film Based on a True Story in 2017), was given the award for best director in absentia, resulting in many of the members of the audience walking out.
‘It was so tense,’ said Green. ‘I have never been in a situation like that before.’ She is enjoying the shift in the power dynamic in the film industry, working with female directors like Alice Winocour, making female-centric stories, like that of the astronaut Sarah, where there is not even a whiff of romance. ‘It is good, and there is still more to do,’ she says. ‘It is so radical – for men it is very hard, they take so many hits. There are very good men.’
One of the best men, as far as Green is concerned, is director Tim Burton, with whom she has collaborated on three films, most recently last year’s Dumbo. There have been rumours of romance between Green and Burton, who has two children with his former partner, actor Helena Bonham Carter, but Green has always denied this, maintaining that their relationship is purely professional. ‘My dream as a child, and later on, was always to work with him. I love his world. He is such a nice person as well.’
Green says she does not have a partner at the moment – her main companion is her miniature schnauzer, Winston. ‘Winston is so clever; very serious, very sensitive. I can’t lie to him,’ she says, showing me a picture of him, looking serious and sensitive in a tartan bow tie. ‘This is how I dress him.’
Green has lived in London since her early 20s, when she got a British agent and promptly moved into their spare bedroom in Primrose Hill. She loves London, but her circle is international – her sister, Joy, lives in Italy, on a vineyard with her Italian count husband and two children. ‘She is very different [to me], very down to earth. We are so different that it might have been a bit tense in the past, but we really get on now.’
When asked to elaborate on these sibling differences, Green considers, before saying, ‘Maybe I am a bit weird? If I mentioned tarot, things like this, she would go, “You are crazy.” So I don’t talk about any of that.’
Green became interested in tarot in 2014 when she was filming the Showtime series Penny Dreadful, a drama set in the Victorian occult underworld starring Josh Hartnett and Billie Piper. Green was nominated for a Golden Globe for her portrayal of Vanessa Ives, a young woman prone to satanic visions and demonic possessions.
‘If it [tarot] is done properly, it teaches you things about yourself. It is fast-forward therapy.’ She does not go to normal therapy, although she did a little when she was younger. ‘But if you have a few tools, you can become very connected.’
Her toolbox includes regular meditation. ‘I am very into this guru at the moment, Teal Swan, who lives in Costa Rica. She does guided meditations that really calm you.’ She also exercises every morning for 45 minutes, sometimes with a trainer, and uses the Wim Hof cold-water-therapy technique, which involves a daily 10-minute cold shower. ‘It is all about the breathing and helps you when you are stressed. It makes you get rid of all that s—t.’
These techniques are a proactive way of managing anxiety. But Green also likes a glass of red wine in the evening (‘Of course. I’m French. I have been doing that every day of my life since I was 18’), going for long walks, taking photographs, and compiling collages of black-and-white images.
She is not on social media – ‘it is very narcissistic and not in a great way’ – and her greatest pleasure is travel: trips to places like Namibia and Bhutan, long walking holidays, often alone. ‘The first day is always quite scary, but then you connect much better with your surroundings, with people as well. Your senses are more awakened.’
The opportunity to travel was just one of the reasons Green accepted a role in the upcoming adaptation of Eleanor Catton’s The Luminaries. Set in the 1860s during the New Zealand gold rush, the BBC Two series stars Eve Hewson, the actor daughter of Bono, while Green plays scheming brothel-keeper Lydia Wells. ‘I love characters like that. You think she is one thing and then you discover that she is something else. Of course she is manipulative, but she is not a baddie. She is a very strong woman.’
Lydia is also an astrologer, another of Green’s interests. ‘I am completely into that stuff.’ Her star sign is cancer, and in July she will turn 40, although there will not be a party. ‘I am not a birthday girl at all. I always want everyone else to feel so good that I cannot relax.’ The fact that it is a landmark birthday is adding to Green’s feeling of unease. We talk about how age brings maturity, wisdom and a sense of acceptance about who we are.
‘That’s true. And then there’s the immediate thing of, “I’m going to get old, what did I achieve, are people still going to desire me?” Especially as an actor, I think, because I’ve always heard that when you reach 40, it is going to be difficult to get roles. What about as a woman: can you still be attractive, do you have children? If you don’t have children, are you kind of a social failure? These are clichés, but people say, “You don’t have children?” and you feel like not a woman when you say, “No, I don’t have them.” It is hard… But then, I feel like I am 12 still and now I am about to be 40. What happened there?’
And yet, she does have a plan… ‘I want to get a farm. I know it sounds like a whim, but it is something that I have been thinking about a lot. Maybe Wales, I love Wales. The scenery is amazing. Sitting in the city, it is choking me sometimes, and there is nothing better than to connect with nature. You feel whole.’
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/eva-green-coping-crippling-anxiety-shyi-wish-silent-movie-sta

First off, I know, this is probably (maybe) the millionth time you guys have seen this (but not from me). And let me just say that I don't think it's a 9/10 or anything. When I say "underrated", I mean that it's better than its 60/100 reputation. I'd give it a 75/100, myself. Here's why:
Pros:

Lea Seydoux's Madeline Swann is the most effective Bond girl turn since Eva Green's Vesper Lynd - by far - and a great performance in its own right (okay, say what you want about Judi Dench's M, but come on). Any good Bond girl needs to be more than a mere damsel in distress or beauty queen. But in terms of series tradition, they DO need to be in distress - and being beautiful is also part of the job description. Seydoux brought a genuine feeling of emotional scarring to her character that made me believe her, and to sympathize with her, but also learn not to underestimate her. And she had great chemistry with Daniel Craig such that her carryover to Bond 25 has been a warmly greeted one. Did their romance happen a little too easily? Sure. But when your name is James Bond...how hard do you really have to work for it? Doesn't change the fact that Seydoux turned in a great performance in the series.
Craig finally got his 'memorable henchman' in Dave Bautista's Mr. Hinx, and their fight scene on the train echoed the rougher fight arrangement of From Russia With Love. Skyfall's Patrice may have been in a good role, but he was ultimately limited in how much of an impression he made and how many 'Bond villain henchman' boxes he checked. Bautista was a massive, cunning, interestingly gimmicked (metal thumbnails and twin-barrel sidearm) relic from a bygone Bond era that I think is one of the requirements in terms of really making Daniel Craig's tenure feel like it stands beside Sean Connery's and Roger Moore's (let me just go ahead and slight Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan here) in terms of cinematic spectacle.
Playing off of the above point, Spectre is such a retro Bond film that it feels like a 'greatest hits' with its villainous archetypes, set pieces, bad guy lairs, fight scenes, etc., it was a welcome trip down memory lane. Skyfall set up the possibility for a more 'Bond'y Daniel Craig Bond film, and Spectre paid it off. For better or worse (for better, in my eyes).
Production design. From the opening in Mexico City, to Hoyte van Hoytema's classy cinematography (it rivaled Deakins' work in Skyfall, IMO), to Rome, to the set pieces, to the costuming, it's a gorgeous film to look at. They spared no expense. Every hair was in place, every 'i' dotted, every 't' crossed, and combination of practical effects and stuntwork, on-location filming, and gorgeous cinematography made for some truly gripping moments.

But, again, I don't think it's a perfect film, above reproach, or Daniel Craig's best Bond film. Elements of it are my favorite in the series, but it's a bit of an uneven experience:
Cons:

Christoph Waltz's Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Unlike the majority, I actually do like Waltz's performance in this role. He was born to play a Bond villain, and maybe that's part of the issue with how he was received (because he didn't really live up to astronomical expectations), but I liked his work. And the previous 3 films really established 'personal' villains. The stories took them to personal places. So I understand the instinct here to do that...but what was the point of Blofeld and Bond sharing an origin and all that "cuckoo" stuff? I mean, I don't hate it, it didn't ruin it for me, but it's pointless. Blofeld didn't establish SPECTRE just to toy with James Bond. That's not my problem with it. The motivations for the previous films' plots are intact, and it's revealed that the financier behind all of them (and we knew that they all had financiers - or in the case of Silva highly suspected) was Blofeld and his SPECTRE organization, which he established for his own ideological reasons and personal gain. The personal history between him and Blofeld, that's why he killed his father, why the personal disdain between him and Bond. But that personal disdain amounts to nothing. The emotional angle of it is flat. It's almost irrelevant to the film, itself, where the plot is about the international 'Nine Eyes' surveillance/spy network and how this terrorist organization will benefit from it. It's solely about providing opportunity for exposition regarding Bond's characterization and for the vocal barbs between himself and Blofeld. And that's just not really enough...
Bond defeats Blofeld by shooting down his helicopter...with a sidearm. Okay, sure, if you place your rounds directly on the rotary mechanism, you'll plausibly break something. But who in the world can hit a helicopter at distance, speeding away, with a short-range weapon? I need more than that, guys. That's a stretch.
The number of twists and turns made it feel a bit long. The plot felt like it was over when Bond blew up Blofeld's base (also too easy). But then we have another half hour of film after that or so, give or take...

So those are my thoughts. I think Spectre is a pretty good movie, and an even better Bond film. I'd rank it:

Casino Royale - 90/100
Skyfall - 88/100
Spectre - 75/100
Quantum of Solace - 65/100

Just watched Casino Royale today for the first time since I had the DVD a good 10 years ago, and my goodness gracious it's aged better than my family's wine cabinet.
Fantastic direction, perfect pacing, a grounded, unique villain featuring a thrilling game of poker, the torture scene, the train exchange, every single second of dialogue between James and Vesper, the origin if James' relationship with M, the nuances of seeing a young, naive Bond on one of his first missions, that incredible parkour chase scene in the early half...Jesus, this film fucking rocks!
I've noticed that Skyfall has gotten a bit of a bad rep from certain people online - some of which, I'm assuming, is because of how faithfully people on YouTube and other outlets have compared it to Casino Royale, and I personally don't find it warranted.
I find that both films are set out to do much, much different things - and do them exceptionally well. In the case for Skyfall, that's the near-full circle character development for Bond introduced by Casino Royale: taking a strength from a predecessor and capitalizing on it. Craig's Bond in Skyfall is so refined, yet so damaged. He's virtually on a pendulum of emotions parallel with the level of stakes in the plot. It makes the whole movie flow with an incessant uncertainty, and every time I rewatch it that thrill ceases to escape. (It also helps that Javier Bardem was incredible here, and that his character virtually realized how much of a psychopath he was but just shrugged it off.)
I love how Skyfall's like a dark espionage thriller with masterful cinematography, where every scene is heightened by the direction but also by how carefully it ups the ante. I love how the action sequences capture the practicality of the Connery films (even the Home Alone climax, which I found a lot of people hate). I love how defeated and hopeless Bond comes off at first, before gradually regaining his confidence. I love how M's arc in relation to her paternal reach with Bond gets a proper, bittersweet crescendo. I love the new, modern approaches to Q and Moneypenny. I love how Silva almost tearing Mi6 apart helps establish a world of possibilities for Spectre (which dropped the ball all the way through the floor).
Skyfall is like a drawn-out season finale, with Bond's world and the ones closest to him on the brink of extinction. Casino Royale doesn't have those stakes, and feels a lot different tonally for that. I think we also have that movie to thank for why we even care about what happens in Skyfall.
In Casino Royale, we don't know who Bond is yet, so the decision to subvert expectations and reboot the character the way they did is daring, but incredibly endearing - especially when the third act comes around, and you can see the withdrawal. He's so close to giving it all up right when he's just getting his feet wet as a high-level secret agent, and that's always been my biggest takeaway from the Bond-Vesper dynamic. This film is amazing on so many levels, but it's impossible for me to ever ignore how it perfected the romantics of the book it's based on and the Bond universe as a whole.
IMO Casino Royale is a rich character study that just so happens to be a fantastic Bond movie in every sense of the word. It's more of a drama than any other Bond film I've seen, and that works to its advantage because its dickensian approach to a typical espionage mission is so captivating and arresting.
Skyfall does what none of the other Craig-era films did, and that's cement a sort of timelessness that has helped the Bond movies retain its appeal: mixing modern, action thriller tropes with a touch of 20th century flamboyance that harkens back to the classics. I also don't think it gets enough credit for finding a fittingly cathartic conclusion to a serialized arc.
I'm curious what you guys all think about these films in relation to each other. I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on Skyfall especially, since I've heard (and watched) a lot of various things about it.

I've read a lot of opinion pieces in the last couple years (and this year especially) that all say that Bond needs to change. He's too much of a misogynist, he's a dinosaur of a bygone era, and he just...has no place where he fits in the whole 21st century male-female courtship process. It's a different ballgame these days, they say. Well, I watched Casino Royale tonight, and I beg to differ.
As I mentioned before, Bond has changed quite a bit over the years. He doesn't slap women anymore, he no longer smokes, and there are other changes that Bond has gradually made over the years. Indeed, Connery's Bond (and early Moore's) wouldn't work today, but Craig's Bond certainly does, and the notion that the character would need to continue to undergo change for the sake of cultural acceptability is preposterous. In Casino Royale, Bond seduces another man's wife, and he falls in love with Vesper. That's it. That's actually pretty tame by today's standards.
My best friend got divorced three years ago. Since then, he has been with more women than I can count. And the remarkable thing isn't the fact that sexual promiscuity is still alive and well; it's the fact that women need casual sex as much as men do. Last weekend, over a couple of beers, my friend said, "Most of the time, the women are gone before I wake up in the morning. In fact, most of them don't even want to spend the night. As soon as they get what they want, they leave." When he settled down with a girl for a few months, I asked him what it was like to be in a monogamous relationship again, and he said, "I'm not. I fool around with a married girl that I work with. She's not getting what she wants from her husband, so..." End of conversation. I know this is all anecdotal, but this sort of shit happens all the time today.
The point is Craig's Bond isn't some unrealistic character who has no place in the #metoo movement. On the contrary, Craig's Bond is actually quite tame in his interactions with women compared to what's happening in the real world. The next Bond doesn't need to be this woke gentleman signing contracts with women before he pursues them. He can be just like he is now...because that's reality. Okay, if you want a true dose of reality for the next Bond, include a scene of him going to the clinic to get an STD test. Otherwise, nothing else needs changing.

Hi all,
So a few weeks ago I rewatched Casino Royale. This happens often, as it's my favorite bond film and is pretty close to action movie perfection. But it got me thinking about some of Craig's other Bond films. So yesterday I rewatched Quantum and Skyfall, and I'm realizing that my opinion of these movies from having seen each one once in the theater was completely the opposite of how I felt on rewatch.
After seeing Quantum in the theater I pegged it as just ok, but last night I had a blast watching it. I think when Mathis tells Bond to forgive Vesper and forgive himself, that kind of really sunk in for me. Quantum is a follow-up to Casino in every sense -- the heart of the movie lies in the emotional fallout of Casino's betrayals. So even though I still think Quantum of Solace is a pretty clunky name, I think I actually understand what it's getting at. And on an unrelated topic -- I think I'm in the minority in that I find Dominic Greene an entertainingly weasely Bond villain. I love in the fight at the facility near the end, when Greene whips out the fire axe and goes full-hyena. Greene is interesting to watch.
After seeing Skyfall in the theater I had it down as a top-notch Bond film, and a fantastic movie. But yesterday it really fell a lot flatter for me. I think so much of the movie is about unravelling this mystery -- about who has taken the hard drive and (later) how James's and M's past fits in to this puzzle. Silva as a villain is kind of reflective of the movie as a whole -- unhinged and unpredictable. Skyfall breaks several Bond rules to tell a unique story, but once I rewatched, knowing how that story went, I was left craving more of what I love about the Bond series. Javier Bardem's portrayal of Silva's eccentricities was likewise interesting the first time through, because I didn't know where he was going to go with it. But this time, it kind of came off as a little cartoonish. Like, that element of sinister-ness doesn't come through from Silva. He's a little boy in a grown up body, and he's throwing a fit. The flamboyance builds character, but only to a point. I don't know. Maybe I'm not giving Bardem quite enough credit, but there you go.
The one other point I'd make is that Skyfall does edge ahead of Quantum a bit in that the former's action sequences are a bit more coherent and dramatic. Quantum got a little frenetic. Nevertheless, I'm pretty confident now in saying:
Casino > Quantum > Skyfall >>>>>>>>Spectre.
Would be interested to hear others's impressions.

My list is super different than everyone else’s I’ve seen here and I got a feeling my opinions are fairly unpopular but here’s how the 22 go so far!

From Russia With Love

I just don’t like this one past the halfway mark. The first half is super good I thought but after that I just completely stopped being interested. I didn’t like how long they were on the train and how many times they did the damn secret knock, felt like an hour they were there and Bond left the car. Still not bad, but just not close to my favorite

You Only Live Twice

I don’t know what the hell I watched here, but the ninjas are a big reason why this movie ranks higher than Russia. Most of this movie felt like Connery didn’t even want to be there, his worst performance by far I think. The best part about the movie was the Bond Girls, they were good.

Die Another Day

Again, what did I even watch here. This movie started out super promising and then went out of this world with its plot and everything. I don’t like the henchman with the diamonds in his face, I don’t know why but I just don’t like him. And the villain is bad. A bad villain is not good for a Bond movie

A View to a Kill

I mean, this is basically just Roger Moore having some fun, I don’t think he performed bad at all. It was fun, not much to say about it but the Villain was pretty good here. Especially the scene where he’s looking at the computer that’s analyzing Bond and he’s just laughing at what it says.

The Man With the Golden Gun

This movie is massively hit or miss on every scene. Either it’s a great scene or a horrible scene, and unfortunately I don’t like much of the ending until Bond gets in the trick room, the way he takes out Scalamanger is actually pretty dope. Plus the Chew Me scene is one of the funniest in the franchise to me.

Live and Let Die

This and the Final 3 Brosnan films are the movies I’ve now gone the longest without seeing but this one I’ve seen more recently than Brosnan and I gotta say I spent most of this movie laughing at the production of the 70s. This is the first one I watched of older movies and I was not a custom to how they worked yet so I really gotta rewatch this soon, probably tomorrow evening!

Moonraker

Actually the first half of this movie (interesting trend I noticed when watching YOLT is that most of these films down here start good and don’t know what a 3rd act is) is super good. Like I thought I was going to have a new entry into the top 5, but after the Jaws Chase scenes (back to back) I don’t know what the hell happened. Things went bonk after that.

Quantum of Solace

I think this is a top 10 movie with editing done by someone sniffing crack at the office right before his shift started. I make the joke “what am I watching” a lot but here in the beginning car chance, actually what am I watching? I can’t tell at all. Action scenes are impossible to follow. If the editing was better I’d easily have it in my top 10, but damn it’s so bad.

Diamonds are Forever

The one I watched tonight and Um I actually like this one and think it’s a good finale for Connery. Yeah it’s not his best work and he looks old as hell but I think this was a huge comeback from YOLT. The Bond girl is pretty whatever here, and I’m surprised Bambi and Thumper weren’t in the movie anymore seeing they work for Mr. White. But overall it was entertaining and I thought good.

The Spy Who Loved Me

Moore’s puns in this movie are insanely good, the only thing about this movie I kinda don’t like is the whole underwater base thing and I guess the final battle was not very good to me, but again the first 2/3 of the movie were extremely good and I love XXX in here too. Though her facial expressions don’t vary all that much.

Dr. No

Everything about this is classic, and Connery does it very well. Honey Ryder is easily one of the best Bond girls of all time and the final act didn’t pain me! It was kinda silly lol but it was a good movie. Perfect place to start!

Goldfinger

Ummmm yeah it was solid. I liked a lot about it, I really don’t know why I don’t put this higher. I never understood why I just don’t like it as much as the ones above because even thinking about it now, I can’t think of anything I straight up dislike. This must be the point in the list where things get really good.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

A movie that shocked me with how good it was. It nearly got close to dragging in the middle but it ramped it up and I actually think the strongest part is the 3rd act in this one. Lazenby surprised me but I really wonder if Connery or Moore would have been better here. This movie almost feels like a Brosnan natural calling to me. Tracy is probably my top 3 Bond girls of all time.

For Your Eyes Only

Why do I like this lol like actually why is this my favorite Moore film. This is where I think he started to look older than the others and where his action scenes fell off a cliff but I just like everything about this more than the rest of his films. Maybe Spy belongs here but that’s for a different watch through in October. For now I have FYEO here.

Tomorrow Never Dies

Well this is just solid Pierce Brosnan (my favorite Bond by the way) and it feels a lot like Goldeneye but not quite as good. The opening scene here is chaos and it’s beautiful, probably one of my favorite openings in the series. Always fun to watch this one! Though of the movies on this list it is the one I have not seen for the longest period of time now.

Thunderball

My favorite Connery outing by far, this one as a kid I remember hating but this time I loved it. The girls were fantastically used, Connery’s one liners were on fire and I thought the villain and underwater scene worked really well. I was kind of shocked that I liked this so much but not the train sequence in FRWL.

The World is not Enough

I don’t know why people don’t like this one much, I think Electra King is freaking amazing in this movie and Brosnan is at it again as his usual self. The villain I didn’t like as a kid but as I grew up I liked him more. When I was a kid I didn’t like villains that looked scary or weird to me, I was a weird kid and I didn’t want to hang out with Elliott.

The Living Daylights

I watched 6 Roger Moore films and then this one so maybe it was the order I did this in but this was a super nice and refreshing take to the roll that wasn’t in Moore’s films. Dalton was fantastic and I’m pretty hype to watch License to Kill.

Spectre

When it first came out it was my #1 but I realized it was just first watch hype and now it’s here. Oddly enough my least favorite part about this movie is Blowfeld in the second half, this movie almost suffers from the same formula of “the first half was super good but then what the hell happened” except I kinda like Swann. No, she’s Definetly no Vesper but I bought her as a potential love interest for Bond. Things could have been a lot worse in that regard and I think No Time to Die is going to be so good that it’ll make this one even better

Casino Royale

These top 3 are very hard because they all deserve #1 in my heart. LaChiffre (?) is my favorite villain in the franchise and Craig’s performance is out of this world. His movies are so god damn good. Vesper is probably the best Bond girl of all time in my eyes (Vesper, Tracy and Natalya are probably my top 3) and the poker scenes here are actually legit amazing!
Oh and “Sorry.. that last hand nearly killed me” is actually probably the best line in the franchise

Goldeneye

I’ll admit some of this is probably just Videogame nostalgia because I played N64 Goldeneye like over a thousand hours but the movie is even better! I always lose time when watching this movie because it’s so damn entertaining I’m like “wait it’s over already??” This is my favorite of the series to pop in and watch. 006 is top tier villain in action too.

Skyfall

Definetly my favorite and this movie really revived my interest in the franchise back in 2012. From 2008-2012 I don’t think I watched any Bond films at all and then this came out. It’s beautiful. Sylva is so good, M is so good and her Death was insane payoff. Oh and Q here is super good, I loved the scene they introduced him in. Perfect casting for that role

Hello! Here are my Bond film ratings. They are grouped together by actor and not year of release (i.e. see Sean Connery). I gave a score out five and a little review of the film.
Some of them are short, some of them are long. Some of them were done long after watching the movie so there wasn’t a lot to say about them.
Enjoy!
Official Sean Connery - 6
Dr. No (1962) Liked 4/5 Nice start to the series. Although it’s not the first book it makes sense for everyone.
From Russia With Love (1963) Liked 4/5 Good sequel. Continues the SPECTRE plot from the first film.
Goldfinger (1964) Liked 4/5 Classic. Found the end to be a little cheesy though.
Thunderball (1965) Liked 4/5 Found it very intriguing, although I thought the beginning was a little confusing at first.
You Only Live Twice (1967) Liked 4/5 This might be my favorite from the official Connery era. I just love seeing his Bond go up against Blofeld.
Diamonds Are Forever (1971) Disliked 2/5 I’m not really sure what exactly I didn’t like about this movie. Maybe it was because it felt like there was nothing happening in this imo. Bond goes to Vegas... now what?
George Lazenby - 1
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) Loved 5/5 Very close adaptation. George Lazenby is one of my top 3 Bonds
Roger Moore - 7
Live And Let Die (1973) Loved 5/5 First Moore film and great start to era.
The Man With The Golden Gun (1975) Meh 3/5 Found it be just like the 70s: cheesy. I did like the ending though.
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) Liked 4/5 What a dynamic duo James and Anya make. Plus Jaws, who’s probably my favorite henchman. I do hope he makes a return...
Moonraker (1979) 3.5/5 Okay I liked this movie for the most part but the end just really bothered me and I don’t know why... I did like hearing Richard Kiel speak though.
For Your Eyes Only (1981) 3.5/5 Okay I thought this one was just ok. Nothing special. Found Bibi annoying as hell, which I get is the point but she was just too much to take.
Octopussy (1983) 3/5 Meh There were too many characters too keep track of, too many things going on at once.
A View To A Kill (1985) 2/5 Disliked I found this one to be boring. There wasn’t much going on in this movie, especially in the first forty-five minutes or so. Bond goes to a horse race and goes undercover to find out why Zorin is using microchips. Okay.
Timothy Dalton - 2
The Living Daylights (1987) Liked 4/5 Good start to a more serious Bond. Also Dalton looks just like how Bond is described in the books. Didn’t really like the cello chase scene though.
License To Kill (1989) Liked 4/5 I really like that this is the first rogue Bond film. I enjoyed the plot very much, how it centered on the revenge of his friend and his wife and not just on a girl.
Pierce Brosnan - 4
Golden Eye (1995) 5/5 Loved Pierce Brosnan’s first outing as Bond is one for the ages. I liked Sean Bean as the villain and the plot twist was great. Brosnan is Bond in looks and in charisma. Opening theme is now one of my favorites.
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) 4/5 Liked For all I’ve heard about how terrible Pierce’s movies get after Goldeneye, I actually think TND wasn’t that bad. I liked it. I found the plot to be a little cliché but it was well-executed. Johnathan Pryce has always been one of my favorite actors to play a villain since I saw him as the High Sparrow in GoT. I laughed at some parts during this film and Michelle Yeoh was great as the Bond girl. I loved the end when she threw a ninja star into some guys neck.
The World Is Not Enough (1999) 3/5 Meh The movie started off great, leading me to wonder if perhaps this was going to take a darker tone, but I was wrong. It was a little campy in some spots but I didn’t mind. What bothered me was that Renard, in my opinion, seemed very under-used. I also knew Elektra was a baddie as soon as M mentioned that she told Robert King to not pay the ransom. You can’t do that and not expect someone to be angry at you.
Die Another Day (2002*) *40th Anniversary 2/5 Disliked I’ve heard a lot about this movie. I’ve heard that it is considered the worst James Bond entry in the franchise. I’ve heard it’s only okay. Well, here’s what I think of it: I thought it started out great! In fact I was actually enjoying it. I like how it started out with a darker tone, with Bond getting captured and tortured by the North Koreans and then being delivered to MI6. I liked the Cuba sequence even though it was a little bit weird with the guy still being alive despite having diamonds embedded in his face. I liked our first introduction to Jinx. Then it all went downhill from the fencing scene onwards. It did not feel like a James Bond film — it felt like a campy spy flick that comes out every few years. Yes, JB has been known for being notoriously campy during its earlier movies, especially during the Roger Moore run, but it wasn’t stupidly campy like this was: all the puns, the CGI tsunami, and the slow motion! Who directed this, Zack Snyder? It felt like the slow motion effect was used too much in this movie. I can forgive it maybe once or twice but this was just too much. I know it’s such a small thing but it still bothered me.
Daniel Craig - 5
Casino Royale (2006) 5/5 Loved Great entry to a fantastic Bond. Got rid of all the gadgets and cgi and took it right back to its core: a man on a mission. The soundtrack was simply stunning; a story told within a story. I’m simply blown away by everything. I can’t believe that this is from the same writers as DAD! Plus Eva Green... ❤️
Quantum of Solace (2008) 4/5 Liked You know for all the crap this movie gets I didn’t think it was that bad. Best watched right after Casino Royale. Works as a direct sequel, and is Bond’s quest for solace in a broken world. And again, David Arnold’s score was superb.
Skyfall (2012*) *50th Anniversary 5/5 Loved Great little references to the older films. The cinematography was just breathtaking. Wonderful casting. I especially loved Ralph Fiennes as Mallory and loved seeing Moneypenny introduced into Craig’s era of Bond. Although the score wasn’t as good as David Arnold’s, I still enjoyed it very much. The pre-title sequence was intense, and the title sequence itself was spectacular. Adele did a great job! Also that little ‘James Bond Will Return’ at the end was fun!
SPECTRE (2015) 4/5 Liked I’ll be completely honest: I did not like this movie when I first watched it. I found it to be boring and and stupid in some parts. However now that I’m done with my complete watch of the 007 series, I must say that I have judged this movie wrong. There are faults, yes, ones that I will talk about, but this movie was actually pretty good on my second rewatch. Let’s get the good out of the way first: the cinematography. Again, like Skyfall, this movie was visually stunning. The skyline shots of London and Tangier were just gorgeous. The score: I found the score to be much better this time around. Though I still prefer David Arnold over Thomas Newman, I must say that he stepped it up this time. It sounded glassy to me — which I know is a weird way of describing a score but it did to me. It sounded glassy in a good way. It sounded delicate and classy. Madeleine’s theme was my favorite! The direction: Sam Mendes does it again! Just a genius in his craft and I love what he’s done with James Bond! Now for the bad. James and Madeleine’s relationship: I know what writers were going for — A second Vesper, someone who makes Bond realize that there’s more to life than just killing. However it felt very rushed to me compared to Vesper and Bond’s relationship in Casino Royale. One minute she was telling him to get away and the next moment she’s kissing and having sex with him. I think it could’ve been better. The brother relationship between Blofeld and Bond: it was ripped straight out of Austin Powers and that was very disappointing. I expected more from the writers of Skyfall. Also the whole “author of your pain” and “cuckoo” made me roll my eyes. Monica Belluci: before this movie hit theaters it was said that Monica would be in this film as a Bond girl. I remember everyone was very excited, everyone said that she would be the best Bond girl ever. She was barely in the movie for twenty minutes, maybe fifteen tops, and she was only there to have sex with Bond and give him information. What wasted potential...
All in all, I enjoyed my watch of James Bond. I can’t wait for Bond 25 and my hope is that it’s good. I have faith in Cary. I’m also eagerly awaiting the new James Bond actor to be picked.
Now all I have to do is finish the books!

So over the summer I had been reading/watching a ton of different media and entertainment fan theories, "what if's," Lore, and so on. And thinking on this I recalled reading years ago about the theory of Finn being a double/secret Imperial agent.
I spent several weeks combing over the two movies so far, and other forms of Cannon material and some non-cannon, other shows/event and even real life as inspiration for this argument. With less than 1 month to go until the final act of the trilogy comes to an end I thought I might as well post the unfinished work i started earlier this year. Hopefully you find it interesting and if not, well sorry for wasting your time.
(This work is mostly my own, if anything seems like it comes from other articles or posts, its entirely possible, I don't know if i kept a list of all my sources or if i listed them in this document. Don't take offense if I failed to cite something, remember this is "unfinished" and most likely wont be as time has passed and unfortunately got away from me on this project.)

***Please note this doesn't read like a book or story. If you ever enjoyed spy thrillers, movies, tv shows then come into it with the mid set of "how hard would it be to live this kind of life?" or "If this were a real spy, how might their body language behave?" or "How would I act if I were forced into a spy role if i had some form of military training, based on what i "Know" or have "Seen" of spy's in entertainment form?" Coming in with this kind of mindset may help ease some of the "quite the jump to that conclusion" retorts.***
Enjoy:
The Double Agent:
A Conspiracy Theorist’s Comprehensive View of FN-2187 aka Finn
I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove that the Resistance Hero: Finn is actually a double agent by means of some form of mind wipe. Think of Total Recall, Jason Bourne, Cylon sleeper agents or some alternate combination of different types of “mind control.”
I will provide approximate timestamps of both movies shown between the events of SW: TFA and SW: TLJ that will explain these statements. As well as other examples, which will, call upon some external sources and sites that further prove my statement. Some of these examples may seem like a bit of a stretch, so adjust your tin foil hats and let us jump in.
So for a bit of context I may have read an article or reddit post about this particular theory several years ago. I wanted to give it more thought so I re-watched the new movies with the idea of a Finn being a double agent. I got to thinking that a deeper darker character would make these movies much better by the end if the trilogy if they planted a deep cover agent into “Team good guys,” which by the way has not been done to this extent or over an entire trilogy (in the sense of Star Wars.)
By having a character who starts off as “the bad guy” morph into a hero you love then make a drastic turn to be something more sinister by the end would blow the viewers mind. Similar to the theories of Jar-Jar being the “drunken fist” version of a Sith master makes Phantom Menace better. In addition, the Obi-wan and Anikin are in a love triangle with Padme makes AotC and RotS better. Keeping the idea of Finn as a Double agent in mind, I re-watched TFA and TLJ and there are many subtle hints from what he says to body language to convenient tidbits of information that make this stand out.
The main issues I have with Finn, as a First Order deserter and Resistance Hero are these: his knowledge is too diverse, especially when it comes to the FO compared to the history of SW. Examples: ship schematics, R&D tech, Base locations & layouts, Shields & Security/exotic beasts/current events etc. His service history also changes about five times between the two movies. (One could argue he is omitting the information however each time he tells what his “position” was, it is to several different people when no one else is around with the exception of Poe introducing him to Leia.) Lastly, the combination of those makes him such a linchpin to the resistance aka; he is too perfect to their cause.
More importantly, if you choose to believe the story of a stormtrooper leaving the First Order to join the resistance this makes any regular ole trooper a major liability whether they defect or are captured and interrogated. Let this sink in for a moment, we are to believe that a stormtrooper knows virtually everything about the First Order. He is not a high-ranking Grand Admiral or Moff, or General but a stormtrooper. This is such a fundamental flaw for any organization let alone a military group. Let us look at it this way. Would an infantry soldier in the US army knows about or have access to troop deployments, vehicle schematics, top-secret research projects and security clearance above his paygrade and so on? That would be a major problem. At its core if a Stormtrooper knows EVERYTHING, then the FO has no security through segmentation of ranking officials, and creates a huge plothole.
His “story” constantly changes…slightly
· The first time is when he “rescues” Poe; there is no need to tell him what his position is. He strolls up wearing Stormtrooper armor. This is self-explanatory and from Poe’s position does not warrant further question.
· Second, when he meets Rey she assumes he is part of the resistance, which he haphazardly agrees to however, he later tells her the truth, (1:02:50) “I’m not who you think I am. I’m not resistance…I’m a stormtrooper.” *I believe this is the truth*
· Third, (1:22:37) coming from Poe “He’s familiar with the weapon that destroyed the Hosnian system, he worked on the base.” Since he does not say this at any point during the movie, you are lead to believe this conversation takes place off-screen.
· Fourth, Han asks him “What was your job was when you were based here?” Finn’s reply “Sanitation.”
· Lastly in TLJ during the conversation with Rose and Finn (41:44) she asks “but who knows where the breaker room is on a Star Destroyer?” his reply “Except for the guy who used to mop it.” This leads you to believe he either belonged to a maintenance or sanitation crew stationed on a Star Destroyer. Similar to a “scanning crew” in ANH at (1:06:55) or Matt, the Radar technician not a standard stormtrooper.
The rebuttals I have heard is that the FO has the ability to cross train their forces, or they double up the duties of the enlisted or due to disciplinary actions they would be temporarily demoted or that FN-2187 could have been a terrible trooper and simply transferred around from base to base or ship to ship. While all of these are plausible, let us first ask why or what need would the FO need to cross train its soldiers. Are they that short on members of their army? By the start of TLJ the FO reigns. To me this means they are larger than ever, even with losing Starkiller base, a planetary sized military installation, which I assume houses a very large number of Infantry, Pilots, Maintenance, Command, Special forces and possibly other types of soldiers.
I assume that like any military group they probably accept recruits, coupled with the fact that they “abduct children” to join the cause I do not see a real need to force diversity in training. I also highly doubt that any disciplinary action would result in a stormtrooper mopping decks for long periods. Regardless if the FO consists of a massive number of people enlisted, what is the need to have specialized divisions but then have its members belong to multiple groups within? I do not see the tactical need.
Next I will walk through both movies start to finish to spot light these interactions we see Finn from a third person perspective. Keep in mind all the scenes are actually not from his perspective but from someone else’s point of view is even though we are supposed to be focusing on his character. I believe this is vital.
At (5:37) into TFA, we see Poe shoot several stormtroopers, the last being someone FN-2187 knows. I surmise that this person is a close friend or possible lover. (Yes there are female stormtroopers you even hear one talk on Starkiller base towards the end of the movie) and up until this point he was actively engaged in live fire. However, the moment this unknown trooper dies in front of him (regardless of affiliation) I believe it triggers the same confusion/PTSD as seen in say Saving Private Ryan during the “storming the beach” scene. I do not believe it is simply “Finn’s awakening.” He then is looking around for a bit of cover as there is live fire coming back at them now.
Shortly after Poe is captured (8:40), Finn and the remaining troopers are ordered to execute the remaining villagers. He is still suffering at this point from the confusion/PTSD and only been a few minutes to process what just happened to following an order to execute the remaining civilians, which are not threating now, would explain his “hesitation.”
At this point Kylo Ren being someone who embraces the dark side or emotions can sense his anger and confusion. Not his reluctance to follow orders. Fast forward a bit to (9:11) and make note for later, you see three lone stormtroopers destroy Poe’s X-wing. Two using the standard blasters and the third using a heavier carbine.
In the next scene, you see Poe depart the shuttle on the Resurgent-class Battlecruiser aka; the Star Destroyer. At (10:00) FN-2187 walks past Poe and you can hear the anger in his heavy breathing as he enters one of the troop transports and removes his helmet. I say his emotions are similar to walking past someone you just seen murder a close friend, family member, or lover in a courthouse and not having the power to take revenge or seek “justice.” He is angry, frustrated, and emotionally hurt by being so close to the person who caused this, and yet powerless to do anything.
As this scene ends, Phasma shows up and says the following: “FN-2187, submit your blaster for inspection.”, “And who gave you permission to remove that helmet?”, “Report to my division at once.”
This is where I want to take a quick break and make the following observation; FN-2187 is not under the direct command of Phasma until shortly after this order. Let me break it down. There are a couple types of “divisions” to my understanding. The first example would be Engineering, Command, Stormtrooper Corps, FO Special Forces, Maintenance, Deck Crew, etc. The second example would be a subsection of those like the 501st or the 401st or different squadrons, Red/Gold/Blue/Rogue (original trilogy rebel squadrons)
I will admit I am not familiar with Finn’s service record before the events of TFA but will acknowledge that Captain Phasma trained the FN corps. In addition, they were considered by Phasma “to be the greatest in the FO” according to https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/FN\_Corps. According to https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/First\_Order I surmise that Captain Phasma being a “commander” and part of the triumvirate alongside General Hux and Kylo Ren -one of three High Ranking officials- has special command access and resources that others simply do not. She probably commands several units and has access to top-secret projects. Which leads to the point above, she gives FN-2187 a “transfer” command, which she later says he “He reported to her division, was evaluated and sent to reconditioning.” This is where I believe he either volunteered or recruited to become the Deep Cover Agent for the FO. I have also spoken with a couple veterans and asked them to give me their interpretation and so far have agreed, it sounds like an order to transfer to her unit.
Let us take another break to make an important declaration. The events of the movie do not give us a clear timeline of events in the essence of we are not shown how long Poe is being interrogated. This could range from hours to days. How it is acted out makes it “look” as its mere moments between scenes yet I disagree I believe in this context its days.
At this point FN-2187 reports to Phasma’s division, undergoes a psych evaluation and debriefing and is sent to reconditioning which according to the starwars.fandom.com site they link Reconditioning to a “Memory wipe” for droids. (https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Phasma%27s\_division links to https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Memory\_wipe) I further surmise that they would have the ability to implant false memories and information*** vital to his mission (similar to Total Recall) for planting a double agent since your opponents have force abilities such as reading minds and emotions. After this process completes Finn receives new orders: Free the resistance pilot Poe, escape with him, and recover the map to Skywalker. Essentially placing Finn “in play.” This is where we see him enter Poe’s interrogation room (19:20) *with a brand new shiny suit of Stormtrooper armor.*
Note: I will notate with *** next to information Finn should not have access to that could be explained from this information being implanted or transmitted to him throughout both movies.
The Escape!
Note: Any enthusiasm that Finn displays is just a subversion ploy to convince resistance allies he is a part of them. In addition, Finn’s transition to Double Agent “unlocks” the use excessive force or the ability to break imperial protocol when it comes to killing other FO forces to keep the illusion he is a resistance fighter and Imperial defector.
FN-2187 leads Poe out and unconvincingly –to me- tells him “I’m rescuing you.” Because he needs a pilot. This is played off for comic relief but the body language says to me; “I’m trying to convince Poe to trust me and were in a hurry.” In other words, he is too eager to start his mission.
FN-2187 and Poe get into a Special Forces Tie Fighter. Which according to https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/111988/do-first-order-tie-fighters-have-hyperdrives does have shields and hyperdrive capability just for context. Now remember how three storm troopers destroyed a parked X-wing without the use of demolitions? We witness the Tie take several hits during its tethered takeoff, but it deals no real damage unlike the total destruction a few minutes earlier. This is explained by the ability to control the “level settings” on blasters. This example is shown in an early season of Star Wars Rebels in an episode where Ezra joins the ranks of stormtroopers and is involved with their basic training. *Strap on or adjust the tinfoil hat* The troopers firing could have been ordered –by Phasma- to adjust their blasters to a low damage output so as to not damage or prematurely cripple the Tie, this would allow them to keep up the façade of their “escape” by expending pawns in their attempt to plant their agent.
***Another observation of Phasma, General Hux and Kylo Ren belonging to the “unofficial triumvirate” of the FO they could/would also act as Finn’s handlers. As such he was probably given (or implanted with) a list of code phrases, similar to actual double agents. This observation explains why Kylo Ren does not throw a tantrum when their most valuable asset escapes. Instead he’s calm and calculated and knows who helped him escape (at this point in time General Hux is not let in on the secret) which lets Kylo humiliate Hux in front of his officers on the bridge by saying “his troops are good at committing high treason.”
In the cockpit at (23:22) Finn’s position is cemented with Poe and he starts spouting off real important information any resistance leader probably wouldn’t approve of given three minutes into the defectors escape.
Had Finn and Poe escaped to the planet together I surmise that once BB-8 was located Finn would turn on Poe and recover the information for the FO. However since they are separated on reentry and Finn is forced down the path of playing “imperial defector.”
Skipping ahead to (32:49) Finn is in the gunner seat of the Falcon and yells to Rey “Stay low, this confuses their tracking.”*** For someone who has flown in a Tie fighter exactly once probably would not know of this vulnerability. A Tie Pilot would probably know after hours of flying but not Finn. Moving along to (40:00) as they are being boarded by Han and Chewie, Finn throws out another tidbit about stormtrooper helmets being able to filter out smoke, but not toxins.*** To me this is an example of “textbook” information implanted to him. Think of it like this: in the IT world, many end-users do not know the inner workings of how computers work, they only care about the fact that it DOES work. I assume that average stormtroopers would be of the same mentality. Sure, they have field manuals that provide this information or it is in some training program early on but this obscure info would be something easily passed over or forgotten completely.
When Finn first finds out how “Han” (41:20) is he refers to him as the Rebellion General and War Hero. *** One could argue that Finn simply heard of the “legend” from stories told during his imperial service. However, I believe that this is another example of vital information that was implanted. (Mission parameter) Assess potential allies especially if they have ties or allegiances with past rebellions. Han fits this bill. At (43:00) we find out what Han is smuggling: Rathtars. After Rey asks “what’s a rathtar?” Finn replies, “Ever heard of the Trillia Massacre?”*** For being an ex-stormtrooper Finn sure does know a lot about events that take place on other planets and their exotic beasts. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Trillia\_Massacre
Moving along to (55:00) the conversation between Han and Finn, he paints himself as a big deal and follows up by asking he there are any known conspirators or first order sympathizers. This doubles as “I’m resistance and concerned” and “I can possibly get information back to my handlers.” Meeting with Maz, this is where his “reconditioning” starts to pay off as she has some ability to “read” people but cannot get anything very useful on him.
Taking another short break to make another observation. Han tells Finn we have a problem: women always figure out the truth. I believe he suspects Finn of either being a liar (either not with the resistance because he knows who is actually in the resistance OR that he is still with the FO. In addition, he simply does not care at this point in his life. He is no longer “IN” the rebellion/republic or “WITH” Leia, he is back to being a smuggler and potentially wanted by both the Republic and the FO. Therefore, he does not want to get involved, but he is hinting that if Finn really likes her he will have to tell her the truth and/or make a decision on what path he will take (resistance or FO)
Finn’s actions in the cantina scene remind me of the relationship between James Bond and Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale. About 2 hours in, they are together on the beach he actually considers leaving MI6 to be with her, that he loves her and he probably would have given it all up had she not betrayed him. Finn does the same thing as he leaves the cantina –only not as elegantly- (1:02:45) Finn tells Rey the Truth about himself. “I’m not who you think I am. I’m not resistance. I’m not a Hero…I’m a stormtrooper.” I believe this is foreshadowing and the actual truth from his perspective. He is subtly telling Rey he is not a good guy, that if he stayed there he would end up betraying her, however, he would leave it all to be with her IF they left.
Finn lands on the resistance planet (1:21:03) the only ally that trusts him so far is BB-8. Rey captured. Han still skeptical of him. After losing sight of BB-8 Finn spots the droid and Poe who is alive after all. This is Finn’s “in” to meet with the resistance leaders, aka other high value targets. At this point Finn is still under loyalty to the FO but still has feelings for Rey. Think of it as “two birds, one stone.” Finn enters the War Room and you can tell from his body language he is actively looking and taking mental note of valuable resistance information. A normal person would make a straight line and pay little attention to the surroundings if they were truly on a mission to rescue their friend.
Poe introduces Finn to Leia (1:22:25) as a valuable asset, someone who used to work on the base. This leads him to compile a report of the base’s location*** but also doubles as a trap as you later find out that the FO tracks these recon ships after leaving the system where Starkiller base is.
Breaking off slightly again. Leia sums up the resistance real good, they are desperate for any information he can provide. Finn’s plethora of knowledge makes him a linchpin for the resistance. Right here Finn becomes the most valuable asset the resistance owns. To backtrack and reiterate an earlier point if every grunt in the FO knows what Finn knows (assuming Finn is not a double agent) why not just preform simple gorilla style raids and take prisoners and break them into revealing information vital to the success of the resistance and republic? According to TFA audio book that goes into much more detail between Phasma and General Hux when reviewing his service record after he escapes, Finn was described as nothing more than an average stormtrooper. There was nothing special about him. Leia is the one who turns Finn into this “Big Deal.”
During the War Room briefing (1:32:33), they start talking about the new super weapon. *** Finn conveniently knows what powers this weapon and its weak points (the thermal oscillator.) In addition to the base’s location. Finn leads them to believe that he can disable the shields but he has to be there on the planet to accomplish this. This is a three-way motive. 1) This is a ruse; he is helping the resistance disable the shields/base. 2) He actually does want to go rescue Rey. Finally 3) He is still loyal to the FO, this is just another parameter of his mission to destroy the resistance from within alongside retrieving the map to Skywalker.
My issue with Finn knowing the base to this extent becomes a problem when compared to ANH; they had to have engineers analyze the technical specs of the Death Star plans to find the weakness. Now everyone is looking around at a hologram and this “engineer” just “KNOWS.” “Oh it probably needs something like uh I dunno a thermal oscillator?” And Finn is all like “uh yea it’s got exactly that, right here!” Imagine if TK-421 the bestest Stromtrooper knew about the exhaust port weakness of the Death Star just from moping the 4x8 foot platform with no rail where two random people adjust laser knobs.
Just after landing on Starkiller base (1:36:44) Chewie, Finn and Han are sneaking around. This is where Finn admits he does not know how to lower the shields and tells Han the truth. He just wants to rescue Rey. He then tells Han “oh, we will just use the force.” I see this as classic diversion, a way to change the subject. The scene just after that Han reminds them they are on a tight time restraint and says “…The shields…” Here is where Finn has an “idea.” I believe one of two things happens here, first he gets very lucky and bumps into Phasma, which is not part of his “idea”, or, second he knows she will be on the base due to secret communications with one of his handlers. I believe it is the latter. Let me elaborate.
There would be no way he would know that Phasma is currently stationed on the base in the building (precinct 47) they are breaking into this is too much coincidence. Finn got lucky that Phasma was not overseeing command on a Star Destroyer or in a different building on this “Planet.” However, no, she is conveniently just a few doors down on patrol and Finn knows where to find her or that is what we are lead to believe.
Now between the two scenes where Phasma “betrays” the FO by lowering the shields, this is where Finn and Phasma can communicate through code phrases. This example is similar to other works of entertainment involving spies and undercover agents; they tend to include the confrontation scene. This is where your hero (the spy) is in a situation where facing his handler or former friend and they speak in code to each other to let them know “look I’m not really a traitor” or convey whatever message they want to in their unique situation. In addition, if this is true it explains how she was able to escape with ease her “trashy” fate on the base.
One might say, well the comic book miniseries that follows Phasma shows she blamed some other fella then killed him to cover her tracks. How do you explain this? Simply, military politics of the FO. Remember only three people know of this plan (potentially only 2 until the start of TLJ) this would be Phasma and Kylo. I will explain later why Hux does not know at this point. Therefore, she does this to protect their asset in play, Finn. Yea but it leads to the destruction of the superweapon and massive base. How can that be justified? Again simply, by the opening events of TLJ, the crawl screen declares that the First Order Reigns. Remember according to SW lore the First Order is comprised up of many remaining imperial fleets (from the original trilogy) plus thirty years of rebuilding fleets and training new soldiers from these unknown regions of space. The loss of one base and super weapon could be a justified sacrifice for eradicating any resistance and potential allies, the complete destruction of the “remaining Jedi order” and finally displaying an impressive command of fear throughout the rest of the galaxy. Who says this is the FO’s only super weapon?
Finn’s final scenes of TFA is the fight between Rey and Kylo Ren and himself. With ease, Kylo picks up Rey and throws her into a tree. He stated earlier that she seems to be growing exponentially in the force and I suggest that he knows even if she’s knocked out she may still be able to recall or remember these events when she wakes up or in the future. So he decides to keeps up the façade of Finns nature due to them losing a base and super weapon, but potentially gaining much more. Alternatively, altering their plans for a long-term cover agent incase this attack does not immediately favor the First Order. To put it simply they prepare to play the long con.
As stated in other theories but I too believe that Kylo is just putting on a show in the battle with Finn. His ability to command the force compared to Finn, this battle should have been over instantly. All he would need to do is ignite the lightsaber Finn is holding and use the force to stab himself. Instead he lets him live with superficial flesh wounds with no lasting repercussions. Unless making Finn look like a hero in the eyes of the resistance, further cementing his position deeper and deeper making him a “Trusted” ally was the intention.
The Remaining conjecture takes place during the events of TLJ.
First, let us compare the Empire of the Original Trilogy to that of the First Order. We see Vader execute commanders and officers who fail both in the movies and written material (both cannon and no-cannon) this example is very similar to the way Sun Tzu enforced discipline and order in his army in the book “The Art of War.” The commanders of the Empire knew the consequences for failure. From what we have seen in both TFA and TLJ there is not the same discipline and structure. Kylo or Snoke do not go around executing officers when a mission fails or a prisoner escapes, or a stormtrooper defects to the resistance. This is more like a “modern” era approach to the military where they have other forms of punishment for failure. It is not simply Death.
The Empire of old was very disciplined and structured we could see this with the way the commanders and officers spoke with each other, their body language. Again, to compare it with the First order we see a lack of discipline in both their body language and their general composure. Let’s call it “relaxed.”
After the loss of the Dreadnaught Snoke publicly humiliates Hux but this is the extent of his particular punishment. Hux in turn tells them (12:36) that the resistance cannot escape, they have them at the end of a string. The scene then cuts to Finn just now waking up. I believe this is foreshadowing to the secret agent aboard the ship. Perhaps an implant used to wake him up violently. Jumping further ahead to (16:30) we see Kylo walking off an elevator to a conversation between Snoke and Hux already in progress. Snoke, laughing followed by “tied on a string indeed.” I like to think this is where Hux fills Snoke in about the plan to insert a deep cover agent into the resistance. You might say, “Well this is where Hux tells Snoke about the Hyperspace tracking or whatever.” Possibly, but as a “supreme leader” one would assume that he knows of all R&D projects or if this new tech he would be the one to know of its existence. So why would someone of a lower rank tell a higher official about current/new tech. Snoke would probably have signed off on the paperwork to start the work or knew of its existence. However, the existence of a deep cover agent on the other hand, this type of information would probably need to stay limited to only a few people to maintain its secrecy.
At (26:55) lead to believe that what we see is Finn seemingly looking at charts trying to fill in the gaps between the events of Starkiller base and this point in time. I offer up the following: Hes trying to gather as much intelligence as possible since they are now on the run. Therefore, any useful information he can glean would give him an invaluable advantage in this situation. He innocently asks, “Where’s Rey?” and Leia shows Finn, their new most valuable asset, potentially one of their greatest secrets. A cloaked beacon. At which point he walks up to the command station console and “rests” his hands there. I would like to believe that any sort “spy” would be good at “misdirection” and “sleight of hand” and can use this to get a signal back to the First Order, who conveniently show up almost instantly. One could also explain it as a lucky break at this point by the First order making a calculation based off their last known trajectory. (Since previous version of hyperspace tracking requires a device attached to the ship or possibly after 30+ years of development turned into nanotech via implant) We have seen two examples of tracking based off trajectory. First would be assumed during the events between Rogue One and the opening scene of ANH, the other would be where Boba Fett follows the Falcon to Cloud City. There wasn’t any special tech involved in these cases.
Leia assumes at this point that they must have come up with a way to track through hyperspace and Finn can use this as part of his story later. Finn also conveniently picks up the tracking beacon that the resistance is placing their entire faith in by giving Rey a way home should her mission succeed and she returns with Luke. This part is important for later.
We hear a speech by one of the resistance officers at (35:30) I would assume that this speech is broadcasted to the remaining resistance ships and it tells them that almost all of their leadership is gone and how they are down to around Four Hundred souls left between the remaining ships. Shortly after this Admiral Holdo does something that Leia failed to do especially with Finn. She does not give Poe –who’s been demoted- access to information that he shouldn’t have. We have not seen this done at all what so ever with Finn this entire time. We just accept that he is the “good guy now” because he is the only one ever to defect from the Empire or FO, its bad logic.
Around (38:20) we see Finn packing his bags, we could assume that he knows the command structure has shifted and he is essentially a “civilian” in this resistance faction with no rank. He decides to run (with the tracking beacon for Rey…) He later plays this off as him just trying to protect his friend. However, let us think this scenario through.
Scenario A: Rey is successful in her mission to return with Luke to the resistance forces and fight against the FO. However when they meet up with whoever has the Beacon (spoiler: its Finn.) Following his intentions to run and protect Rey, they would no longer know where the fleet is, or IF there is even a fleet left! So what does Finn gain by “saving” her? A pissed woman with a lightsaber and disgruntled Luke, also presumably with a Lightsaber. They would eventually end up splitting ways.
Scenario B: Finn is trying to escape back to a FO ship with the beacon, leading Rey and Luke into the hands of the First Order once they have wiped out the remaining resistance ships. (Remember they are down to three according to the speech) Once they execute Skywalker, Finn can then try to rebuild things with Rey, or use the same-ish tactics he used on Poe, and attempt an escape with her to get away from all this fighting and chaos of the FO and start a new life together.
Either way Rose (an engineer) busts his plans. The resistance labels him as “A Hero” simply because he left “The First Order and what he had done at Starkiller base.” This is where he needs to use his knowledge from earlier and improvise, letting Rose know of the hyperspace tracking system. (40:37)
HYPERSPACE TRACKING PRINCIPAL
Rose says, “Hyperspace tracking is new tech but the principal must be the same as any active tracker.” So what is an active tracker, there is very little information so I surmise it’s simply a device that allows the scanners of a ship to track the movement, ship type, life signs etc. of another ship (within range) then relay that information and telemetry back to the officers. This then becomes useless once a ship is out of that specified range.
The examples we have seen of Hyperspace trackers are:
1) A R&D tech project in Rogue One.
2) Seen in SW Rebels: as a prototype device that attaches to a ship that allows tracking through hyperspace.
Now Finn whose background is that of a “stormtrooper of no special history” can work through this logic with an actual engineer is beyond me to where they can finish the sentence together, let alone he knows EXACTLY where it is. How you ask? He used to mop that exact floor or area of a star destroyer. How convenient.

What happens at the end of Casino Royale? - Answers

what happens to vesper in casino royale

what happens to vesper in casino royale - win

Thoughts on every James Bond film

Purvis and Wade explained their interpretation of Bond falling in love in both CR and SPECTRE on the NTTD podcast

THEORY: James Bond (Daniel Craig) Is Dead

Casino Royale: Why It Worked (Retrospective on the Franchise)

Why I feel Quantum of Solace is a better film than Skyfall

So I just watched all these Bond films for the first time and ranked them

Eva Green interview, April 2020

'Spectre' is Underrated...

Anyone else have trouble choosing between Casino Royale and Skyfall? I feel like both films are masterpieces in their own right.

Bond has always "changed with the times", but he doesn't NEED to change anymore.

Thoughts on the Daniel Craig bond films.

I’ve watched 22/24 so far, only have License to Kill and Octopussy left, here are my thoughts and ranking!

I have finally watched all twenty-four James Bond movies. Here’s what I have to say about them...

Star Wars Double Agent re-re-re-re-revisited

what happens to vesper in casino royale video

what happens to vesper in casino royale top