I like making lists.

I'll probably be making a new top ten thread for myself here as soon as I get around to writing a new top ten list (which could be a while).

I never had one at CS, but I liked the idea of compiling all of my shit into one thread though. So even if nobody reads this or ever comments on any of it, I like the idea of having everything together.

I agree that I like Casino Royale best, because it fixed the things that turned me off of the Bond series. I know Bond fans will roll their eyes at me for saying that.

I thought I would like Goldfinger, but didn't find it anything special, even compared something like Dr. No which I found more interesting.

I saw Russia years ago. I really just remember him trying to shoot down a helicopter with a pistol? I should rewatch it perhaps.

5. Guardians of the Galaxy
'Guardians of the Galaxy' was like an atom bomb of character, lights, emotion, humor, colors and sound. James Gunn did a great job containing the explosion for the most part.

As terrific as the big and loud prison break and space battles were, I appreciated the smaller character moments much more - by far my favorite scene was toward the end when Peter is on the Milano and finally opens his mother's gift. Touching. I also liked the soundtrack, nice change of pace and it helped us understand more about Starlord without him having to just outright say or show us something.

Every character brings something different to the table. I was astonished at how much I liked Dave Bautista as Drax. Hilarious... I don't know if he is an absolutely atrocious actor or a godsend for the part, but great either way. Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper were both solid, and Chris Pratt was good as well. Pratt helped keep the film tethered to the ground as much as it could be, obviously being the only human around but also being the eyes and ears of the audience. Can't wait to see more of Josh Brolin as Thanos. I think his honky-tonk accent is an incredible choice for the character. They're doing a great job of building him as a threat.

Also, shoutout to Cosmo and Howard the Duck. I'd love to see them pop up again in the sequel, obviously in a larger capacity for Cosmo (you know what I'm talking about comic readers).

'Guardians' is by far the most unique thing Marvel has done so far, and I think that's a good thing. It adds diversity to a series of films that is largely about people punching each other (I say that lovingly, I adore this entire franchise). I don't know where it's place will ultimately be in the grand scheme of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but for now it's a terrific and well-appreciated entry. I'm looking forward to the sequel in July 2017.

4. Captain America: The First Avenger
This is more than a good comic book movie. It's more than a good WWII movie. While 'Captain America: The First Avenger' involves themes such as bravery, compassion, love, integrity and strength, which are in no way exclusively American, this is still one hell of a good American movie. And the fact that it feels very similar to 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' helps its case.

I was distressed when Evans was announced as Steve Rogers. Well, that was a mistake because he smashed it right out of the park. He connected with the character in a way that made everything feel fresh and heartfelt. I knew the dude would end up on ice. But seeing it play out to the reactions of both Peggy and Colonel Phillips took me by surprise in its power. Then, when Cap does wake up in 2011, I couldn't help but feel sorry for him over all he'd lost. That's about 35% script and 65% Evans' portrayal. The same can thankfully be said about every actor who worked on this film.

As for the script and direction, they're also hitting homers. I was doubtful about the whole USO storyline. However, it showed how Captain America is more than muscles and a costume. It was also refreshing how the script ramped up the soldier over the super. Seeing C.A. and the Howling Commandos waging guerrilla war on Hydra was dead on and sold the military aspect of the story. It also showcased what makes this character unique in a sea of brightly colored, spandex clad characters that can fly, swing and slice through steel. This well crafted screenplay is complimented by Joe Johnston's surprisingly deft direction.

It seems all the goodness Johnston didn't bring to 'The Wolfman', he delivered, and then some, to this. When Cap was in action, every punch, kick and bounce of the shield was shot clearly for the audience to see. Certain scenes were shot in a way that non-verbally conveyed mood. The USO montage was effortlessly comical, yet disheartening. Contrarily, Rogers sitting in the remains of a bombed out bar visually expressed the extreme loneliness he felt over the death of his old friend. If I had to pick a highlight of Johnston's direction, however, it would be the final confrontation with Hydra.

It goes from action (a motorcycle chase, Cap smacking down a handful of Hydra agents); to somber (Cap's outnumbered and taken before the Red Skull); back to action (the Howling Commandos assault, chasing the Skull down); to romantic (Cap and Carter sharing a kiss); back to action (Cap b-smacking more Hydra soldiers, an aerial dogfight, the final battle with the Red Skull); and then to morose (the sight of the tundra drawing nearer as Cap kept that plane in a nosedive). These shifts in tone never once felt jarring or forced. In the hands of 'The Wolfman’s' director, this would've been a mess. In the hands of THIS Johnston, everything was smooth sailing.

Yeah, they probably could've shown how a post serum Rogers went through a grueling tutelage fit to make Bruce Wayne puke. They probably could've put more emphasis on his mastery of martial arts and acrobatic fighting style. They probably could've found some way to make the costume from the comics work. They probably could've portrayed Bucky exactly like the comics. Yep, they could've done all of this and more. But, who cares when this is already an excellent movie. The only real fault I can think of is CATFA felt a little short—not that it was rushed. I just wanted to see more. And that haunting final line, "I had a date," hits like a brick every time.

3. Iron Man
As much as I love the characters of Batman and Superman, I was never much of a DC comic reader growing up. I've read the Batman graphic novels, but very few of his monthly titles, and the same goes for Superman. I was however, a big Marvel comic reader, dabbling in the Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and the Fantastic Four. But one of my favorite monthly comics that I subscribed to for years? Invincible Iron Man. I felt that the character was so uniquely different from everybody else in the Marvel world, and when big screen tentpole films started rolling out starring the X-Men and Spider-Man, I was praying for an Iron Man film.

Jon Favreau performed an excellent job keeping the story fairly close in line with the comics I know and love by loosely adapting elements of the 'Extremis' story arc, putting the character in Afghanistan instead of Vietnam (not an original Favreau idea like most people think) keeping the armor similar to that arc as well. The Iron Man armor itself both looks and sounds brilliant, a clanking cacophony of assembled parts coming together for a heart pumping streamlined exterior.

Enough praise cannot be bestowed upon Robert Downey Jr., who, overcoming every last inch of apprehension over his casting, is by far the key element to Iron Man's standing out from the waves of other superhero films. Delivering one of the strongest performances in his formidable career, Downey Jr. effortlessly inhabits every last contradictory inch of Tony Stark like the pristine suits the character himself dons. Putting his own unorthodox spin on the character through his wisecracking, motormouthed energy, Downey Jr. still stays true to the spirit of Stark and his darker overtones, even making the transition from callous, arrogant billionaire weapons vendor to iron clad humanitarian feasible through his extraordinary charisma and gleaming, passionate intensity. To say that Downey Jr. is perfect for the role is an understatement; a testament to the use of quality actors for bringing immortalized comic book figures to life instead of ham-handed fresh young faces chosen for looks over talent.

While the rest of the cast cannot quite match up to Downey Jr.'s dynamo of a performance, all prove equally adept in adapting their comic book incarnations in a plausible fashion. Terrence Howard delivers an appropriately curt dignity to Stark's military ally Jim 'Rhodey' Rhodes, adding the perfect clipped acerbic deadpan to the character. Similarly, Gwyneth Paltrow makes a surprisingly convincing potential love interest as Stark's personal assistant Pepper Potts, her natural charisma and share of icy comebacks easily proving a superb foil to Downey Jr.'s livewire of a performance. Jeff Bridges molds his usual laid back image into one of a despicably greedy businessman concealing his shockingly selfish dealings under a veneer of oily respectability, his unconventional performance easily overcoming the trappings of his otherwise conventional villain figure.

Simply put, 'Iron Man' is everything a comic book movie could hope to be: a perfect balance between the grittily serious and exuberantly enjoyable, flawless special effects and a roster of incredible performances.

2. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Wow what a rush! This is the best solo film Marvel has produced to this point. The entire cast is excellent, Chris Evans once again embodies the lead role and turns in perhaps the best effort of his career to this point. It's heartbreaking watching Steve at his own memorial, truly a man lost in time. The rest of the cast is excellent too, Sam Jackson and Redford being the standouts. Sebastian Stan as the Winter Soldier is ruthless and yet passionate. Great writing and a strong story, huge action, perfect direction. Bring on the Age of Miracles.

1. The Avengers
I never doubted Joss Whedon for even a moment. I had reservations about the film itself up until a few months ago when the studio started promoting the hell out of it, but I never once doubted Joss Whedon. I always knew in the back of my mind that even if the film wasn't very good, it would still probably be a lot of fun. After all, Whedon has created some of my all-time favorite television shows in Angel and Firefly, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer was pretty good at times. And like I said, that was my thought process before the trailers and television spots started coming out. Once we started seeing more of the Hulk and the action, my anticipation went through the roof. The last time I was that excited for a movie was in 2007/2008 for 'The Dark Knight'. That level of eagerness is incredibly rare for me, especially now that I'm not a kid anymore and don't put as much time into places like this or Rotten Tomatoes or the IMDb boards. There was a part of me that, ten minutes into the movie, reverted back to my 12-year old self and thought, "This is going to be the best thing ever!"

Well... it wasn't. But that's not to say it wasn't outstanding in its own right. 'The Avengers' had been on people's minds since 2008 when Sam Jackson entered the screen in 'Iron Man' as the captivating Nick Fury and started talking about the Avengers Initiative. I still remember seeing it in 2008 and thinking how great the idea was, that Marvel would individually release these movies until they had built a team from the ground-up. But I also felt like it was a pipe dream, something that would never come to fruition. As far as I can remember, something of this magnitude had never been attempted before.

It's rather remarkable how well Whedon manages the chaos, establishing a crisp story of alien invasion while massaging conflicts within the group, staging a few hero vs. hero fight scenes that highlight the not-so-friendly competition between these strangers. Thor is particularly troubled in this script, displaying the God of Thunder as a conflicted man, torn between the defense of his adoptive home and his commitment to the safe return of Loki back to Asgard for a proper rehabilitation. It's an emotionally loaded subplot that doesn't exactly get its due, yet remains tangible due to Hiddleston and Hemsworth's snarling commitment to the toxic reunion. With so much to juggle, including the interests of S.H.I.E.L.D personnel, it's a wonder anything gets accomplished in The Avengers. Credit must be paid to Penn and Whedon, who knit a fresh adventure out of dangling plot lines, creating a distinct comic book tone to the effort, with larger-than-life acts of bravery and transport (the good guys take refuge in a flying aircraft carrier) punctuated by distinct superhero charisma radiating from the majority of the cast.

Not only must an original plot be established to introduce a worthy conflict for the heroes, but most of these characters required an update since their last adventure. This leaves the opening half of the script sprinting forward with Loki's rise to power as he clears a runway for the powers that be, while the rest of the time is devoted to dissecting sensitive superhero headspace, catching up with the likes of the recently thawed Steve Rogers, who's having trouble acclimating to contemporary society. There's Tony Stark too, growing domesticated with assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) while working to perfect a sustainable energy plan using arc technology.

Every major personality receives time in the spotlight, as Whedon and co-writer Zak Penn make a herculean effort to bring together these forces of nature with a clean understanding of trepidation, finding each member of the team greatly unnerved by Loki's scheme. Bruce Banner's journey is especially interesting, with The Avengers rebooting the good doctor for a third time since 2003. Well played by Ruffalo, Hulk's second banana position is ideal for such a tragic figure, challenging the production to articulate the doubt and turmoil raging within Banner without the need to stretch simplistic internal instability over two hours. Here, the doctor is a troubled man housing a dark impulse, while Hulk is displayed as beast of fury gradually finding an attitude of heroism, with plenty of HULK SMASH! action worked into the viewing experience. A few of his scenes are sure to elicit standing ovations.

The finale takes to the streets and skyscrapers of New York City, where the Avengers begin to exercise their teamwork abilities to successfully repel the Chitauri invasion. The sequence is enormous, with a few deft shots providing a sense of scope to the superhero resistance, sold with incredible visual effects -- the Hulk's spots are worth the price of admission alone, joining the fray in a comfortably exaggerated manner. The action is intense and extended, keeping track of the Avengers as they unite and scatter, hitting such thrilling notes of unity, it's easy to forget the film's occasional faults. And true to the Marvel universe, a few seeds are planted for further development in future sequels and personal adventures.

With how satisfying 'The Avengers' was, it's hard to imagine anybody walking out of the theater disappointed. Whedon and co. pulled off a miracle here, managing to successfully juggle both ego and duty with a special kind of flair, while also managing to leave the characters in positions where it feels natural to return to the solo stories Marvel and Disney have coming up. If you were to break up superhero movies into two categories, those that rely on brawny explosions and witty dialogue like 'Iron Man' or 'Spider-Man 2' versus those that rely more on dark, complicated, and gritty realism like 'The Dark Knight' or 'Watchmen', 'The Avengers certainly represents the peak of that first category. I can't wait to see what Joss Whedon has up his sleeve for the sequel.

Good stuff. I'm going to try and archive my old list and then maybe start a new one.

I like your James Bond list.

Ranking the Pixar Films or: How it only took me four lists to break the 'top ten' rule.

14. Cars 2
I remember so little about 'Cars 2' other than just being disappointed despite seeing the film for free and going in with zero expectations to begin with. Pixar saw an opportunity to milk the cow here and they took it, and that's fine. A lot of films over the years have been made first and foremost because it's a profitable property, but a lot of them still ended up being enjoyable. 'Cars 2' is not one of those movies. It's just a mess, even with the inclusion of Michael Caine. Like I said, I didn't have any expectations but I still thought the movie was deplorable.

13. A Bug's Life
Every company has their failures, and I think it's kind of ironic that a company as successful as Pixar has been saw their first almost right off the bat. 'A Bug's Life' is one of the weaker efforts Pixar has produced. The animation feels kind of rushed despite the impressive landscape, but the primary issue is that the film lacks heart and that's where it falters. In some ways it's a modern take on Akira Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai', but to compare the two films further would be undermining Kurosawa's work and I won't do that. A lot of the jokes don't really work, and that's a big problem when you don't find yourself really caring much about the characters or feeling pulled in by the nature of the plot. The film is clever at times, but that's about the most I can say for it. Also, didn't 'Antz' come out literally right before this?

12. Cars
I have similar thoughts on 'Cars' that I do on 'Finding Nemo'. They're not exactly the same feelings, and I do think 'Finding Nemo' is better, but again I think 'Cars' definitely has high moments spread throughout a film that is ultimately hard to feel much of a connection to. Some of the characters, Doc Hudson in particular, display something resembling a backwoods charm that we haven't seen much of from Pixar yet. There is a different tone on display that they're not used to. The film is deliberately slow, and I respect that to an extent.

That being said, it's also a film that replaced all people and animals and whatever with talking cars. And ultimately, it's hard to find a lot of interest in that.

11. Brave
Does it make sense to say this is the first time I've watched a Pixar film and thought it didn't feel like one? It felt more like a typical modern Disney movie, which admittedly I haven't seen many of but the comparison seems like it's probably accurate regardless. A lot of Pixar's films are about the relationship between father and son (Woody and Andy, Nemo and Marlin, Bob Parr and his kids, Carl and Russell). Those are obviously not all biological, but that relationship has served as the basis for a lot of Pixar's work. It was nice seeing that dynamic flipped to reflect a daughter and her mother, but I will admit I felt less interested in that. I think Pixar put a little more effort into 'Brave' than they have some of their other more recent projects, but they're still going downhill here.

10. Ratatouille
I feel like I'm really starting to repeat myself here, but I just didn't have much attachment to this film either. I realize that I'm not exactly the target demographic for a film about a rat who can cook as well as the best chefs in France, but something everybody loved about the first half dozen Pixar films is that it didn't really matter how old you were or what your interests were, there would be something in the film that you appealed to you. I don't feel like 'Ratatouille' fits that mold. I remember starting to feel a little turned off by Pixar at this point since this was two flubs in a row (in my opinion anyway, I know a lot of people love this movie), obviously not realizing that they had much better things on the horizon.

Sorry, 'Ratatouille' fans. Patton Oswalt is fun, but the rest of the film really isn't.

9. Finding Nemo
I'm very torn on 'Finding Nemo'. I think the film has an amazing setting, I love the ocean and the underwater visual technology is astounding. And I think the film does have some very emotional moments that the Pixar films were quickly becoming known for in 2003 that really help sell the story. But, I just have such a hard time relating to the characters and I think that is arguably what made the first several films what they are. I also think the film's subplot with Nemo and the other fish in the dentist's tank plotting their escape, while essential to the overall story, feels like a very unnecessary, and even at times distracting, detour at times.

'Finding Nemo' is great at times, but I feel like Pixar has turned out much better efforts elsewhere (both before and after this film's release).

8. Up
'Up' is another film that I would utter in the same breath as 'Finding Nemo' and 'Ratatouille'. I do think that the first 10-15 minute montage with Carl and Ellie is superb and one of the better things Pixar has achieved, and I appreciate the subtext of the rest of the story in that he's trying to come to grips with the loss of his wife. But the main adventure with him, Russell, Muntz, and the dog just didn't really do anything for me. The film is well made, but it just lacks a certain appeal for me beyond the opening montage. That alone gives this an extra half star.

Everything or Nothing: Ranking the Six James Bonds

I think it's kind of funny that despite being a lifelong James Bond fan and being a pretty avid fan of making lists like this thread was designed for, I've never actually sat down and ranked all six Bond actors. One way to do it would be to average out the ranking of their films, which I've done below (the lower the score the better naturally, film rankings taken from Letterboxd):

Sean Connery: 8.2
George Lazenby: 9
Roger Moore: 15.7
Timothy Dalton: 14
Pierce Brosnan: 20.5
Daniel Craig: 6.0

However, I don't think the quality of the film is always indicative of the quality of the Bond himself. For example, The Spy Who Loved Me is one of my favorites of the series, but that doesn't put Sir Roger Moore in the upper echelon. By no means. No, there's a lot more to ranking these interpretations of the same man than just averaging out their films.

6. George Lazenby
Appears in: On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Was there really any doubt? I think On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a great Bond film, in fact it obviously broke the top ten barrier up above. But Lazenby himself is perhaps the worst part about the film; he actively brings it down a notch or two. If 'OHMSS' had been a Connery or Moore film, then we'd instantly have another film contesting for a spot in the top five. But we don't, instead we have an awesome movie full of more interesting characters than the lead. He doesn't have many of the traits needed for Bond (and that's saying something considering how different the next five on this list are from each other). I know he lacked formal training prior to playing this part, but it's obvious he's out of his realm and should not have been chosen. Sorry George, but somebody has to be at the bottom of this list.


And yes, I did intentionally choose a shitty picture to represent him.

5. Timothy Dalton
Appears in: The Living Daylights, License to Kill
Here's where ranking becomes more difficult. I'm not a fan of Lazenby, period. He was easy to shuffle in at the #6 position because I just don't like him. I love all of the five other versions in their own ways though, so this was a tougher call.

Maybe Dalton drew the short straw because he only appeared in two films, maybe not. I'll attempt to provide a better explanation than that though. It would have been interesting to be alive in the 70's and 80's, and be used to the Roger Moore character and his shtick. Enter The Living Daylights in 1987. What a contrast, leaving behind the much softer, grandfather-ly Roger Moore and bringing in the cold, calculating, and ruthless Timothy Dalton. He was the Daniel Craig of the franchise before Daniel Craig came around. Dalton seemed to be much more focused on contrasting Moore than actually playing Bond and displaying some of his more popular characteristics. Dalton's interpretation is pretty rough around the edges. Perhaps a third film would have given him the chance to hone in and play a better Bond, or maybe not. But because of that, Dalton is slotted here.



4. Roger Moore
Appears in: Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill
If Roger Moore has anything going for him, it's that he has the supreme 'feel' of James Bond. I don't really know anybody who considers Moore to be their favorite, but I know several people who consider Moore to be the definitive Bond (presumably because he portrayed him in the most films, quantity over quality for some apparently). He's suave, charming, and humorous, and his Bond films were generally pretty fun and never overtly serious. I can't imagine throwing any of the other actors in Moore's films, and likewise I don't know that Moore would have worked with the scripts written for other Bonds. I like Moore for his womanizing ways; sometimes he's a little too smooth (especially as he was getting older), but he works well as Bond and I can't imagine the franchise being as successful as it has been without him. A debt of gratitude to Roger Moore.



3. Pierce Brosnan
Appears in: Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough, Die Another Day
Goldeneye was the first Bond film I ever saw. I grew up with Brosnan, he was the definitive Bond for me during my formative years (his first came out in 1995 when I was 7, his last in 2002 when I was 14). It was because of him, and my appreciation for his films (at least at the time) that caused me to branch out and take in the other films in the series. I see the Bonds as having tiers; Lazenby is in a class all his own at the bottom, the lines are blurred somewhat between Dalton, Moore, and now Brosnan, with Connery and Craig (or is it Craig and Connery?) at the top. If someone asked me to picture James Bond in my mind, I would bet Brosnan is who would pop up. Not because he's the best or he's my favorite or anything like that, but he has had such a lasting impression on me. That being said, I think he has earned this spot despite any bias. He can be suave and funny like Moore, or violent and ruthless like Dalton. And to be honest, I think if Brosnan had been gifted with a better creative team, he might rank even higher. I know I said I wouldn't let the quality of an actors' films impact my rankings, but I suppose I lied a bit. I can't in all seriousness put Brosnan over Craig or Connery anyway.



2. Daniel Craig
Appears in: Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall
As much as I love Daniel Craig in this role, and I do, he's not the king of the mountain. Not yet. If Quantum of Solace had been a little better, or if his upcoming film (the 24th in the franchise) is of a high quality, then he'll take the cake. Until then though, he's second. I remember the James Blond comments and how many people were opposed to him; I was still disappointed Brosnan wasn't coming back, even though I wasn't necessarily opposed to Daniel Craig taking the job. They couldn't have picked a better person. A lot of people compare Craig to Dalton. While Dalton is kind of like Craig, Craig isn't at all like Dalton (a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square kind of thing). Craig is much closer to Connery despite the 40 years separating the two. Craig is ruthless, violent, suave, a womanizer, a man of action, smart, sarcastic, etc. He embodies all of the best features of Bond, and all of the best features of Connery. He breathed new life into the franchise with Casino Royale, and I'm thrilled we still have two more outings (at least) with the guy before he goes out to pasture.



1. Sean Connery
Appears in: Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds are Forever
He made James Bond what he is. More than any of the actors to follow, more than Cubby, Saltzman, Wilson, Barbara, etc. I think the series might even owe more to Connery than it does Ian Fleming (and that's coming from a big fan of the books). It's a funny thing, most actors want to avoid typecasting when they take on a role. Connery did that, going on to have a long and successful career after Bond; most famously known for Bond, but doing a lot of other things too. However, the entire role of James Bond was typecast based on Connery's performance. Every new Bond is measured against Connery, and all of them have fallen short (Craig being the lone exception, I really do think they're on the same page, Connery wins this because of longevity). The series wouldn't be the same if they had cast anybody else as the first Bond, and that's why he's the best.

I think Dalton probably would have worked well in Goldeneye, the tone of that film was still pretty reminiscent of how Dalton's films felt. But as the series grew lighter, Dalton would have felt out of place. I can't even imagine him in Die Another Day. Dalton surfing is hilarious to me.

It's one thing I've always loved about the Bond films, they all feel different in certain ways. I was actually joking with my girlfriend the last night that the next one comes out in about a year, and she was astonished that the series has lasted as long as it has despite them "all being the same" in her words. I don't think she's right. Obviously they all follow a similar basic premise (Bond + Bond girl + gadgets + villain bent on destroying world/economy/government/something = Bond movie), but I think the tone in all of them has been unique enough that the series doesn't feel tired. A Moore film certainly doesn't feel like a Dalton film, and Brosnan is much different than Craig or Connery.

I might revisit 007 with these lists, but I think I'm going to take a break for now. I'll have something new up today.

Well as you mentioned I think the first three Bourne films were great, and I think the style of those films greatly influenced the Daniel Craig films. James Bond will always win out though, if for no reason other than the 50+ years of history attached to the name.

Maybe if David Tennant is the next 007 they could pull that off.