I kinda feel the same way about CASINO ROYALE. I mean, I liked it, but not on the same level as everyone else, apparently.

I'm finding that I'm not too big a fan of "franchise reboot" movies. Some of the problems I had with CASINO ROYALE I also had with BATMAN BEGINS. Now, with CASINO it's not too big a problem since the origins of James Bond could be elaborated upon. In 20 movies, you only got bits and pieces about James and who he was before he became a spy. So you could effectively do an origin movie about him. But some of the stuff felt a little redundant, I feel. Like re-introducing characters we're already familiar with and moments and things we've seen in various incarnations. They say they're doing all this for the first time, but you can't disregard 40 plus years of a cinematic legacy. You just can't.

It's even worse with BATMAN BEGINS because Batman, like James Bond, is a modern myth. You ask anybody on the street what the backstory of Batman is, everyone knows it. It's engrained in our pop-culture DNA. So why make a movie about something that's common knowledge. And by explaining in detail and repeating it three times all the bits of the Batman ethos, it just takes away all the mystery that surrounds the character of Batman, which puts him a cut above most generic superheroes.

In contrast, Bryan Singer did the smart thing with SUPERMAN RETURNS and said "I'm not doing an origin movie. Dick Donner did it flawlessly in 78, why should we retread ground already covered?" A title card and a great shot of Krypton exploding is all one needs to be refreshed on the Superman myth. Instead, he expanded on the mythology of Superman and showed why the world needs him.

Sorry for going on a rant there. GOLDFINGER is great, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is also great in that you saw a more darker side to James, and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is my personal favorite of the Connery Bonds for one stunt that's very simple, but incredibly nerve-wracking. You'll know it when you see it.

Oh, and congrats on the Scorsese/GANGS essay. That movie doesn't really seem to get the credit it deserves, I feel. And also, add Terrence Malick and Werner Herzog to the list of great directors. Both are really inclined to philosophy and putting nature in the foreground of their films and seem to work on another level of consciousness. The former is a reclusive master, the latter is also a documentarian and a complete lunatic.

And, Frank Capra... okay, I'll stop now.

Oh, and if you like Kurosawa's stuff, check out Takeshi Kitano's films. (He also goes by "Beat" Takeshi.) He's the big director in Japan right now. I *love* his films.

You forgot Howard Hawks, Cecil B. DeMille, Jean-Luc Godard (France), M. "Night" Shyamalan, Tim Burton, Nancy Meyers, Penny Marshall, and John Hughes.

LOL! Yeah, I know who all of those directors are, thank you. I've seen 700 films (estimated), and I can often shamelessly identify movies by seeing only a single frame, and I love watching those AFI specials. Right now, I'm preparing to write a paper on Scorcese's style in Gangs of New York.

All that said, it's shocking that I've never seen a Bond film before today. But yeah, I'll definitely check out Goldfinger tomorrow. Thank you!

Yes, Connery was the best Bond, followed by the new guy, Daniel Craig, and then Roger Moore and Pierce Bronsan. And the best Bond movie is Goldfinger, at least in my books. you should really check out the look of old movies, Hitchcock has some great stuff as does John Houston, John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Stanley Kubrick, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese, just to name a few of the great directors. Akira Kurosawa from Japan also.