In honor of the release of Casino Royale, I’ve compiled my personal ranking of Bond films from best to worst. How does my list compare with yours?

• From Russia With Love (1963)
• Goldfinger (1964)
• Thunderball (1965)
• For Your Eyes Only (1981)
• Dr. No (1962)
• GoldenEye (1995)
• On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)
• You Only Live Twice (1967)
• The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
• The Living Daylights (1987)
• Octopussy (1983)
• The World is Not Enough (1999)
• Live and Let Die (1973)
• Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
• The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)
• Die Another Day (2002)
• A View to a Kill (1985)
• Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
• Moonraker (1979)
• Licence to Kill (1989)

Will Daniel Craig be the best Bond since Sean Connery? I think maybe he will, and I’m not alone. Some in the media have even gone as far as saying Craig is the best Bond ever now that the film has opened. I think that’s bold, and I’m not about to make that claim without having even seen Casino Royale myself. I do like what I have seen of the film via previews, but it will take one heck of a performance to eclipse Connery’s long shadow in the franchise.

Can he ever top Connery? That may be the challenge, as this story pointed out:

“[N]o matter how good Craig might prove to be in the role, he may never be able to surpass Connery’s defining performance in many fans’ eyes. ‘From all the reviews, I think [Craig] will be the best Bond since Connery,’ [said one fan.] ‘But Craig is interpreting a character that was formed by Connery. All the others have had to follow that template, and whoever follows Craig will have to as well.”

Nonetheless, I am thrilled that Casino Royale’s debut is finally here. Will anyone dare say it is the “Best Bond Since Goldfinger,” the Bond against which all Bond films are compared? (I personally prefer Thunderball and From Russia With Love.) Some have already said, as expected, that Royale is the best since Goldeneye, but tracing back all the way to 1964 for what many consider the signature 007 movie is a longer distance to travel. We’ll see soon. I’ll post my personal review on Saturday.

Will Daniel Craig be a better James Bond than Roger Moore? This is a question that will likely take the passage of some time to answer fully. It isn’t fair to compare the two actors when Craig’s debut film has not even launched yet and Moore has seven contributions to the franchise.

That said, I don’t think the media will be likely to make the “Best Bond Since Moore” claim because Pierce Brosnan has been so widely loved in the role. I do think he may ultimately be a better Bond than Moore, though. Why? He’s young enough and rugged enough to look the part. Moore really wasn’t even with Live and Let Die in 1973, and it didn’t get any better as he grew older. I think Craig has the opportunity to operate in Sean Connery’s determined, sophisticated and clever shoes while still incorporating some of Brosnan’s not-as-goofy-as-Moore-but-still-clever wit.

Will any critics claim that Casino Royale is the Best Bond Since For Your Eyes Only? That’s not likely, even though I would argue that it is Moore’s best film by far, because FYEO is 25 years old at this point. Regardless, it may very well be true. Looking objectively at the series in recent decades, I think the best films, in chronological order, are: FYEO, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough. Octopussy might perhaps merit an honorable mention, but it pales in my mind with the rest of this class. So does Tomorrow Never Dies, even though it is a respectable entry. I fully suspect that Royale will be better, based on what I have seen, than Daylights and TWINE. It is likely to outclass Goldeneye, if you ask me, but that is a taller order.

I would have to say that FYEO and Goldeneye are the highlights of the James Bond film series since 1981. Royale should be safely in good company among those films and possibly even higher. We’ll see very soon.

I said earlier this week that Timothy Dalton (right), a talented actor with ample stage and film experience, might have been the right Bond at the wrong time. That’s probably true to an extent. Is history about to repeat itself with Daniel Craig? I personally don’t think so, but here are my thoughts on why the comparison might be apt.

Dalton replaced Roger Moore, who arguably stayed a little too long in the role and certainly took James Bond in a campier direction than his predecessors. Perhaps as a reaction to Moore and an intention to turn the series toward a more serious direction, the producers tapped Dalton for 1987’s The Living Daylights, which I consider a reasonably solid contribution to the franchise and a vast improvement over A View to a Kill, Moore’s swan song. I think where Dalton’s faults ultimately lay were in his approach to the role: He was too serious where Moore was not serious enough. Dalton was a believable secret agent, but he lacked for the sophistication and playfulness that are trademarks of the Bond film series. In my opinion, he was a Boy Scout turned ruthless secret agent who offered plenty of grit but not enough cool. Bond needs a good bit of both.

Is Craig walking into the same situation? Not exactly, but it is fair to say that each actor who has replaced a “legend” as James Bond has struggled to fill 007’s shoes. George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery and failed so miserably that Connery returned for one last film. Dalton’s demise was not completely related to his performance, but he too did not escape Moore’s shadow for long. I certainly consider Pierce Brosnan as a legend in the role, and for my money he is second only to Connery as Bond. At the same time, Brosnan is passing the torch to Craig at a time when the film series has strayed to far toward Moore territory again. Die Another Day did not showcase space stations and laser rifles, but it did display Brosnan windsurfing and driving an invisible car.

Here’s where the difference lies for me: Craig just isn’t Dalton. Both are talented actors, but from what I’ve seen so far, Craig exudes a level of cool and sophistication that Dalton never possessed. Some have called his arrival the introduction of Steve McQueen to the character of James Bond, and I think that’s a fantastic move for the series. I think Craig will have a shot to have a lengthy run as Bond, but the proof will be in the pudding beginning this weekend.

Will Casino Royale be better than The Living Daylights? Well, I don’t think any media will be likely to make the comparison because 19 years after its release, Daylights doesn’t command a major presence in the franchise’s canon. I imagine Royale will be a better film because of the efforts that have been made to reboot and improve the franchise itself, but don’t overlook Daylights on the whole if you are looking to catch up on Bond films you’ve missed.

Obviously, Daniel Craig (left) won the title of Best Bond since Brosnan as soon as he landed the role (since he’s the only one since Brosnan at this point), but how will he compare? My guess is that the media will spend most of their time describing how different Craig is in the role compared to Brosnan, not whether he is better or worse.

This may be an unfair analogy, but perhaps Brosnan’s portrayal can be seen as a more serious version of Roger Moore’s Bond, who brought more than his share of campiness to the role. Brosnan’s films are full of double entendres and quick quips throughout, but he never approached some of Moore’s silly shenanigans. (Have you watched Moonraker or A View to a Kill recently? I hope not.) Brosnan also brought a ruggedness and credibility to the character of Bond that Moore rarely exhibited.

If it’s true that Brosnan is a more serious take on Moore, perhaps Craig will emerge as a more realistic (but not necessarily more serious) take on Connery. Connery is my favorite Bond, now that I’m farther removed from the Moore movies of my youth, and to see Craig follow this route would be most welcome, in my opinion. Connery was plenty serious until his last film, Diamonds Are Forever (yes, I’m disregarding Never Say Never Again), and that served him well. He exhibited a well-timed sense of humor while focusing on getting his job done on behalf of the Queen, and he was sophisticated and credible throughout his original run in the series. That said, no one is still buying that megavillains have hidden launchpads and space ships capable of capturing astronauts in flight. In other words, perhaps Craig will bring a level of realism to the role that will actually be real: a story that is compelling and could actually happen in the real world.

Where does that leave Casino Royale in relation to Goldeneye, Brosnan’s first movie? I think it is all but assured to earn the title of the Best Bond Since that 1995 film, but will it be better? My guess is yes, but we’ll have to wait until this weekend to know for sure. More to come…

The sign on the right says “new stick driver.” Consider yourselves warned.

I plugged my annual salary into this wealth calculator today. Try it out and see where you fall. According to the list, I rank in the top 0.9 percent of the world in terms of income. Granted, I’m only the 54,214,557^th wealthiest individual worldwide, but that’s out of 6,000,000,000 people. Six billion people.

I’m not pointing this out to boast. Why would I, when there are so many people who outrank me? There are plenty of people I know who make more money than I do, much less the 54 million I don’t. What struck me today is just how much I personally take for granted and how much I focus primarily on my own circumstances. (I’m not being humble as an act of self-flagellation–I know lots of us fall into this category, but this raw number really illustrated the point for me.)

My wife and I were talking over the weekend about how much we all tend to focus on what we know, on the things right in front of us. Our immediate field of vision, literally and figuratively, is what concerns us. What does it matter that places such as Darfur (Wikipedia entry) exist when we have tangible distractions that are so much closer to home?

It should mean everything that places like this exist and that we are ignoring the squalor and suffering taking place elsewhere. It’s awfully easy to tune out when the pain and anguish in the world is one remote control click away.

I realize I’m pontificating a bit, and some of that is a result of my own guilt at living in the comfort I do when others would be happy with far less. Is it my place to singlehandedly change all of this? Undoubtedly, no, but it is my place, I think, to think about how I could live my life a little differently. What would my life and our country look like if we kept the rest of the world in mind while we went about our business each day?

I’m excited about the debut of Casino Royale, the latest installment of the James Bond film franchise set to open this Friday.

As I’ve mentioned previously, this reboot of the 007 storyline initially had me concerned, but no longer. From the preview advertisements I’ve seen, Daniel Craig looks to be a convincing and realistic secret agent, and the movie appears to be light on CGI and heavy on characterization and drama. (Well, as heavy as Bond movies get, but the presence of both is saying something).

The initial buzz appears to be very positive and heavy on hyperbole. New Bonds typically receive a similar welcome to newly elected presidents: They get largely warm praise at first, and only in hindsight does the picture become clearer.

Timothy Dalton, perhaps the right Bond at the wrong time, earned a good reception with The Living Daylights in 1987 that soon cooled. Pierce Brosnan was greeted with enthusiastic acclaim that survived his four-film run as Bond despite increasingly weaker scripts. (Sean Connery and Roger Moore obviously were well received in their debuts while George Lazenby was not, but I only saw their debut films in hindsight, not in the theater.)

That leads me to two questions I intend to ponder this week. What film will critics hail Casino Royale as “The Best Bond Since …”? Which actor will Craig be compared to as “The Best Bond Since”? The answer to the latter may be more compelling than the former, but we’ll see. More to come.

You know things are good for the Preds when earning a split against the Wings and Avs has me wanting more. After being shut out 3-0 by Detroit Friday night, Nashville responded with a hard-fought 1-0 shutout win of its own over Colorado.

Scoring a total of one goal in a two-game stretch is a concern to me, but I’m hoping it’s a symptom of the six-day layover between games prior to Friday. Still, it’s great to earn two points with only a single goal.

The Preds took a lot of penalties this weekend, and it cost them against the Wings. They survived it against the Avalanche, but only because Chris Mason stood on his head making saves. The Preds take the road again this week to face Columbus on Wednesday, and here’s hoping for fewer penalties and more offense. Go Preds!!

I think Battlestar Galactica is getting better by the week right now, and last night was no exception. This has been a strong season so far, but this episode may be my favorite so far. It was eerie watching the Colonial crew take their first look inside a Basestar, especially one decimated by a mysterious illness.

I am searching for an explanation about one apparent discrepancy, though: Why are the basestar interiors we’ve seen this season radically different from the ones we saw in Kobol’s Last Gleaming during season one? I think the practical answer is that Galactica’s budget has been increased or adjusted since that season, but discrepancies such as these bug me without an explanation that justifies the storyline. Perhaps there are two classes of basestars that serve different purposes, maybe the first season basestar was an older ship or maybe we’ve just seen different levels of the same ship design in season one and season three, respectively.

I liked the explanation for the virus, but is this really something that the Cylons could not quickly overcome? They may not diagnose human diseases frequently, but they’ve created synthetic people that are visibly indistinguishable from the real thing. That technical expertise makes me think that their civilization would easily be able to deal with this kind of virus. On the other hand, perhaps time (possibly as much as 3,000 years) and something about the beacon where the virus was found allowed the virus to mutate in an especially lethal form.

It was interesting to me to see the deliberations about whether the Colonials would use the virus as a weapon. Even in a holocaust situation, I think there would have to be some consideration for the ethical issues genocide would represent, but I think I would have sided with Apollo and Laura Roslin in electing to use the virus against the Cylons. It would be a horrible and difficult choice, but one made in an almost impossible crisis of survival. I disagreed with Helo, but I could also understand his reasoning. I do think Adama let him off too easily by doing nothing in response to his sabotage, an action that likely caused casualties and/or fatalities and put Galactica in major jeopardy. I hope there will be some consequences for him in the future, even though I like his character.

Regarding the torture scenes with Baltar and D’Anna, anticipation was, for me, worse than the reality. James Callis was convincing in his agony, but the Cylon methods were more vague and centered ambiguously more on pain than I imagined. D’Anna operated more out of necessity than wrath, which is a logical assumption given her need for more information, but I had expected (and feared, honestly) the latter leading into the episode. Baltar is in a more precarious position than anyone, except possibly Colonel Tigh, and I am curious to see what his options are as the story continues.

The Red Wings were the better team on the ice last night in Detroit, period. They defeated the Preds 3-0 and effectively answered the bell in this first matchup of the young 2006-07 season.

Detroit came out flying in the first period while Nashville looked a half-step behind. The Wings carried the play for much of the period, and the Preds took too many penalties. Robert Lang tallied on the power play to give Detroit the only score it would need. Nashville gave up an unnerving 20 shots in the opening frame, too. The Wings also heavily outperformed the Preds in winning faceoffs, which never helps.

Niklas Lidstrom added a score early in the third that gave the Wings an extra cushion. Though the Preds never tallied, they did sustain increased pressure during the period before allowing an empty-net goal late.

Here are a few isolated observations I had during the game, too:

• Martin Erat continues to play extremely well. He is as physical as ever, and his stickhandling is spectacular at times.
• Josef Vasicek had his first ice time in a few weeks returning from injury. I didn’t notice him in the first period, but he was aggressive in the second. It’s good to see him healthy again.
• Henrik Zetterberg is blazing fast. He blazed past Paul Kariya in one stretch, and that’s a tough thing to do.

The Preds finally return home tonight with a chance to bounce back against the Colorado Avalanche. Nashville’s overall and road winning streaks had to end eventually, and here’s hoping that the team can get back on the right track quickly after this setback in Detroit.

What’s in store on Battlestar Galactica tonight? As usual, I’ve done my best to avoid anything more than the teaser description, but I’m looking forward to tonight’s episode. I’m happy to have the Colonials off of New Caprica and back out in space, and I am enjoying seeing the new storyline gradually unveil.

I hesitated before posting the photo (above) from SciFi.com because it makes me uncomfortable. I consider James Callis (Baltar, seated and wailing in the photo) to be an excellent actor, and his performance in the episode preview following last week’s show really wigged me out. He is very evocative, and my imagination ran wild imagining what the Cylons must be doing to him to make him respond that way when being tortured. I never particularly enjoyed (or watched) Xena: Warrior Princess, but I think Lucy Lawless has made a great addition to the cast. She doesn’t physically or emotionally resemble the character of Xena at all. I think that’s a good thing because I can’t see a Xena-type character working very well on Galactica.

I’m especially curious where the writers are ultimately going with the series and with the search for Earth. Normally, I’d think this search and its eventual conclusion would run the high risk of being cliched and overdone, but not on this show. What surprises do they have in store for us?

Several sources on the internet this week have assumed that the foreign device the Cylons found last week originated from Earth. I may need to watch that episode again because I didn’t really see evidence of that other than it being an unknown object (which wouldn’t necessarily point to Earth). I guess we’ll see.