Ranking The Star Wars Villains

As I’m assuming you know, this week marks both the beginning and end of something very special to approximately 800 billion people worldwide: It’s the beginning of a new Star Wars trilogy (and the universe beyond) and (hopefully) the end to the wait for a proper Star Wars sequel. Listeners of this show know how much I love this universe and how excited I have been for the last three years waiting for this week to arrive. To celebrate the occasion, we’ve recorded a ton of special podcasts which have been releasing over the last two weeks and I’m working on putting together some kind of Star Wars-related content each day this week for the blog.

Today I present to you, dear reader and listener, the (my) definitive ranking of every villain within the Star Wars movie universe. Two quick disclaimers: One, I chose not to include creatures. Maybe rancors are actually very gentle beings unless they’re forced to kill for the entertainment or Jabba and maybe the space worm (now known as an exogorth thanks to the Internet) just didn’t want a spaceship landing in its throat. We don’t know, so they’ve been tossed out. And two, this list pertains only to the six Star Wars films, NOT the expanded universe. While I have some experience with the expanded universe (books, video games, comics, TV shows, etc.), there’s far too much of it to consider in this space. So these 26 baddies are ranked based only on what sort of impact they made within the films themselves. Enjoy and feel free to send in your thoughts to madaboutmoviespodcast@gmail.com or @MAM_Podcast or @BGill12 on the Twitter. (Also, I’m sure there are small errors or exclusions and I’ll just have to live with that.)

26. Nute Gunray (Episodes I and II)

There is nothing even remotely positive anyone can say about Nute Gunray and the entire Trade Federation story line that dominates the plot of Phantom Menace. He’s obnoxious, his voice is borderline offensive, and he looks like a puppet that got rejected by Fraggle Rock.

25. Battle Droids (Episodes I and II)

In so many ways, the prequels are such a huge regression from the original trilogy and nowhere is that more apparent than the battle droids. It doesn’t really make sense that in this universe, the bad guys would downgrade from robot killing machines to humans who can’t hit the broad side of a barn with a blaster and it makes even less sense that these robots would speak as if they were all practicing for an open mike night. Even with all the other issues, the prequels come up a grade or two just by removing these guys from the mix.

24. Zam Wesell (Episode II)

The only good thing you can say about Zam is at least she (he?) dies quickly. A Jango Fett patsy in Attack of the Clones, he/she shape shifts while botching an assassination attempt that sets the entire plot of the film spinning. Worthless.

23. Greedo (Episode IV)

Greedo slides down here to the bottom of the list because he overstepped his boundaries. You might have thought yourself a decent bounty hunter, Greedo, but you were not ready to step into the ring with pre-carbonite Han Solo and come out alive. You couldn’t even get a shot off, bro. (See what I did there?) And now you’re green toast.  

22. Watto (Episode I)

The biggest issue with Watto is that I think he would’ve been a menacing or at least interesting villain in the original trilogy. If Han and Leia roll up on a Watto character in Jedi, I imagine he has an edge to him and the creature design isn’t comical and maybe he actually adds something to the story. As he stands, he’s a symptom of the issues within Phantom Menace and basically doesn’t have a reason to exist.

21. Bib Fortuna (Episode VI)

Great creature design on Mr. Fortuna and he plays the part of creepy majordomo quite well. But when your own boss calls you a “weak minded fool”…well, you’re probably not long for this list.

20. Imperial Generals, Admirals, and Captains (Episodes IV-VI)

I grouped these dudes together in part because most of them are virtually nameless on screen and in part because they’re almost all terrible at their jobs and/or really good at angering Darth Vader. From Admirals Motti and Ozzel to Generals Tagge and and Veers on down to Captain Needa, these guys exist pretty much just to hold back Vader and Company and pretty much all get choked out at some point. Only Captain-turned-Admiral Piett seems to accomplish anything but he, too, winds up dead. Tough job.

19. Clone Troopers (Episode III)

I can’t begin to tell you how disappointed I was in the clone troopers. Whenever the Clone Wars received mention in the original trilogy, I had visions of some grand spectacle and appropriate soldiers. Instead, the prequels virtually passed over the Clone Wars and all we got were some super CGI-y Stormtrooper knock-offs. Their programmed shift against the Jedi is a cool moment but it doesn’t make up for how meh they turned out in the first place.

18. Sebulba (Episode I)

As a character and from a design standpoint, Sebulba isn’t far off from being a cool secondary villain. Unfortunately, his dialogue is atrocious and like most of Phantom Menace, he comes across altogether too childish.

17. Magnaguards (Episode III)

Magnaguards start off pretty well. A group of them put Obi Wan and Anakin to the test at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith and their electrostaffs are effective both visually and in combat. But in their second appearance, Obi Wan dispenses of them so easily that we are left to believe that the first go ‘round must have been an aberration.

16. Royal Guards (Episode VI)

Of all the B-characters within the original trilogy, I think the Royal Guards probably look the coolest. Those red robes are baller and they carry some sort of spear that you just know can do some nasty things. And yet, they’re nowhere to be found when Luke and Vader fight it out and don’t even bother to come to Palpatine’s defense when Vader chucks him down shaft. Weird time for a smoke break, guys.

15. Tusken Raiders (Episodes I, II, and IV)

Tuskens look like something out of Mad Max and I mean that as a compliment. Plus, these dudes are incredibly primitive in virtually every way and yet they terrify everyone on Tatooine so you know they make the most of their limited intelligence and resources.

14. Count Dooku (Episodes II and III)

To be honest with you, I have Dooku this high only out of respect for Christopher Lee, a great actor who did some amazing work in his career. But frankly, Dooku is a major let down. Sure, he imprisons Obi Wan and Anakin but only after they both mysteriously forget how to use the Force for 20 minutes of screen time. Then Mace Windu shows up and Dooku immediately tucks tail. And when he returns in Revenge of the Sith, he promptly loses his hands and head. Lame. Plus, his name is definitely a word for poop in one language or another.

13. Bounty Hunters (Episode V)

This group (Bossk, Zuckuss, 4-LOM, IG-88, and Dengar) displays some of the best creature design within the entirety of the Star Wars universe. If only we actually got to spend some time with them! There’s plenty on this crew in the expanded universe but within these six movies, we get virtually nothing on them. And yet they landed this high because they’re so dadgum COOL looking. Even Dengar, who was definitely just a homeless dude they brought on set at the last minute.

12. Storm, Snow, and Scout Troopers (Episodes IV-VI)

Stormtroopers (and their kin) take a lot of flak for not being able to shoot anything except Jawas and rightly so. It’s weird that the Empire put Stevie Wonder in charge of their shooting range but I guess Vader had a soft spot for “Songs in the Key of Life.” Regardless of their shooting ability, their armor game is on point and when a huge group of them march in, you get a little chill down your spine.

11. Jango Fett (Episode II)

Another “what could have been” casualty from the prequels. What happens if you take a bounty hunter (easily the most awesome vocation in the known universe) who is so wicked that someone builds an entire army out of his DNA, give him super cool armor and add in an actor who can actually act and a screenwriter who can actually write? You probably get an iconic villain. Instead…kind of a letdown. On the plus side, he totally hangs with Obi Wan and even quasi wins their standoff…only to get beheaded in one second when Mace Windu shows up.

10. Anakin Skywalker (Episode III)

Bad acting aside (and trust me, that’s a HUGE aside), Anakin’s turn in the back half of Revenge of the Sith is incredibly dark and horrifying. He just straight up murders a bunch of kids. There’s so much more that could be drawn out of his shift but as it is, it’s still one of the more well-done elements of the prequels.

9. General Grievous (Episode III)

Grievous is incredibly well designed and comes across as menacingly as an entirely CGI character possibly could. He presents a great challenge to Obi Wan and he’s a fearsome fighter. The problem is, almost all of what should be the best Grievous content is relegated to the cartoon series and the rest of the expanded universe. He basically has no place in the actual movies so he never matters the way he should.

8. Darth Maul (Episode I)

The marketing for Phantom Menace was EVERYWHERE in 1999 and the most interesting, exciting part of the whole thing was Darth Maul. Star Wars lifers such as myself could not wait to get a look at Maul on the screen. And then he showed up and he was AWESOME. And then he showed up again and he was even MORE awesome! And then he got cut in half. And then he fell down a shaft. And that was the end of him. Why do you have to tease us so, George?!

7. Boba Fett (Episodes V and VI)

An international man of mystery if ever there was one, I would wager that no character in the Star Wars universe has a greater ratio of screen time to expanded universe content. As a nerdy society, we are OBSESSED with Boba Fett. There are entire video games, books, graphic novels, and fan films devoted exclusively to Boba Fett and while I totally get it because I, too, think he’s incredibly cool, it is kind of funny that someone who has perhaps three lines in the entire franchise and dies in the most throw-away manner imaginable could capture our collective imagination in such a way.

6. Emperor Palpatine (Episodes V and VI)

Obviously Palpatine is the great evil within the galaxy far far away and he drives the narrative from behind the scenes. On screen, he’s creepy and fully illustrates the way in which absolute power destroys a man. But because of his physical state and his arrogance, we only briefly see him turn his power loose and as such, the real lasting image we have of him is the way he dies which is hardly befitting of a truly great villain.

5. Grand Moff Tarkin (Episode IV)

Initially, I had Tarkin a bit lower on my list but a friend talked me into his current spot. The destruction of Alderaan gets overlooked when you consider all the events of these films but that’s a pretty big deal to just flip past. For no other reason than to show off the power of his new toy and torture a 19 year old girl, Tarkin killed BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. I’m not sure even the Emperor himself is that evil.

4. Jabba the Hutt (Episode VI)

Jabba’s particular brand of villainy is simple: the dude wants money and respect and that’s pretty much it. Despite being a galactic slug, there’s a familiarity to him that I can’t help but appreciate. You don’t pay him his money? He freezes you and displays you for all to see. You try to sneak in and steal his prize? Guess what, now you have to wear a humiliating slave costume. Jabba doesn’t get near enough credit for being the great villain that he is, to the point that the Emperor and Vader would rather treaty with him than try to fight him outright.

3. Darth Sidious (Episodes I-III)

There are many, many failings within the prequels but Darth Sidious is one of the few elements that Lucas got right. If you cleaned up his dialogue (seriously, Lucas’s dialogue gets worse on every viewing), he’d be a perfect political villain. He’s slimy in the most charismatic way and he wields the tool of manipulation just as well if not better than a lightsaber. And yet, when it gets down to the gettin’ down, Sidious takes out Mace Windu (with the help of Anakin, of course) and battles Yoda to a draw. He’s a great villain lost in a sea of awful writing and bad CGI.

2. Darth Vader (Episodes IV-VI)

The case for Vader has been handled ad nauseam so I’ll just say this: I think Darth Vader is the most iconic villain in the history of cinema. I’m sure there are plenty of other worthy contestants but you would be hard pressed to find a movie watcher between the ages of 8 and 60 who would not be able to identify him or at least acknowledge that he is the bad guy from Star Wars. He’s menacing and terrifying but most of all, he has that PRESENCE that demands attention. In the macro, overall view of film as a whole, Darth Vader is synonymous with “villain.” And yet…

1. Jar Jar Binks (Episodes I-III)

…in the micro view of just this franchise, Jar Jar is undoubtedly the greatest villain. Now look, if you listen to this podcast or read my writing, you know that I love bits and jokes more than just about anyone. But I really mean this; it’s not a bit. As much as this fanboy would like to ignore him, Jar Jar has become a huge part of the conversation revolving around this franchise. He brings about feelings such as hate, disgust, anger, and a little bit of fear. (What Star Wars fan hasn’t expressed even a modicum of doubt regarding The Force Awakens in light of Jar Jar?) We’ve gone so far as to release edits of the prequels that cut him out entirely. Even Lucas himself seemed to grasp the horrible mistake he’d made in allowing Jar Jar into his beloved universe by giving him the deciding vote in Revenge of the Sith to award Senator Palpatine unlimited power. That’s a stroke of genius! I freaking hate Jar Jar and so does just about everyone who’s ever claimed to have some connection or affinity to this universe. He’s the villain we deserve, not the villain we need. Jar Jar is basically the Donald Trump of Star Wars and because of that, he’s earned this crown.

Back & Forth: The End of the Tour

Sometimes films come out that we all see—but don’t record an episode on. When this happens, we often times still discuss them. Brian and Richard recently had an e-mail exchange regarding James Ponsoldt’s newest film, The End of the Tour.

Richard Bardon: So I come at this from the angle of a fan more than you probably do. David Foster Wallace (DFW), in a lot of ways (and certainly not uniquely) defined my early 20s. The novels, the journalism, the public persona were super interesting to me from the moment I started shaving (I started shaving around 23). It's hard for me to wrap my brain around this film critically because writers--like podcast hosts--are very intimate and actually live inside my brain. I was so happy to just see my friend DFW again (and not have to imagine him) that I came out of the theatre just insanely happy. I'd be interested in your more critical and measured eye to this film as a whole. What worked? And, more importantly, what didn't?

Brian Gill: You and I tend to come at things from a very similar positions (except for your undying love for Chandler Parsons). As such, it's always interesting when we have completely different viewpoints or, in this case, starting points. DFW was not on my radar until just before (or just after?) his death. I think I was too young to catch the initial Infinite Jest wave and too old for the second wave to have the kind of impact on me that it did with your kind (cardigan enthusiasts). I think I've read (or perhaps Cliff Notes-ed) Brief Interviews with Hideous Men but that memory has been replaced by the film version because I am, as you know, a John Krasinski Truther. That said, I see massive similarities between DFW and a person who had a comparable impact on my life: Kurt Cobain. Both incredibly talented, both geniuses in their own right, and both tragically tortured. 

As far as the movie is concerned, you were quite right to recommend it as highly as you did. While I don't know DFW like you do, I found Jason Segel's portrayal to be borderline perfect, both as it pertains to DFW himself and the "type" as a whole. It's a humble, quiet performance that may unfortunately miss out on big award talk due to its lack of flair but we've seen a lot of (really good) films this year and how many performances have been better? One or two? He's fantastic. I wasn't quite as high on Eisenberg's work here as you were (elaborate, if you will) but that could easily be Now You See Me/Lex Luthor clouding my brain. More likely, I watched the movie on my home TV while doing other things and Segel's stuff was much easier to lock in on than Eisenberg's. I think this film is bound to find a spot on my top ten list (unless Krampus turns out to be even better than I expect!). 

So how did Segel's portrayal hold up for a DFW fan and did the tone of the film strike the right chord?

Also I just accidentally watched 90 seconds of Two Broke Girls while writing this email and I fear I may have angered the spirt of DFW. 

Richard Bardon: I suppose an attempted rebuttal to your various points and insults would carry more weight if I wasn't, at this very moment, wearing a brand new navy cardigan. Alas, I'll push on. 

I like your DFW/Cobain reference. There's a lot of similarities there, for sure. The grunge aesthetic, the super-sensitive personality, the mental health issues. I've also always found similarities betweeen DFW and Eminem, surprisingly enough. I think their relationship with words and ideas were similar. Their brains pacing and racing to find every possible meaning of a phrase. And also, a super-sensitive personality. 

RE: your point about Brief Interviews, that is actually the only book of Wallace's that I actively don't care for. It literally took me almost 9 years to complete it and it's not even that long. It never captured me. Is that movie any good? I've never sat down to watch it. I found the trailer off-putting (while I'm also a fan of Krasinski, I'm not to your level of lust). 

Segel definitely captured what I imagine (and Youtube has shown me) DFW to be interpersonally. The wincing, the way he framed his ideas in really casually phrasing, and the posture all seemed pitch perfect. I just think Eisenberg had an even harder task because his character is written with a little more to do. DFW, in this film, is basically "I'm smarter than everyone when it comes to writing. I'm not smarter than everyone when it comes to life. I'm really just trying to be happy in a basic way. I'm going to kill myself in 12 years, and this will add pathos to things I'm saying now." Whereas Eisenberg has to be insanely jealous, but also insanely in awe of this great, great writer. There's a speed, wit, and love in his performance that I just found really affecting. It was as if J. Daniel Atlas put a spell on me and made me unable to remember the films of Eisenberg in recent years.

Sticking with Jesse, though. I know we hate on him for NYSM, Lex Luthor, and some other work. But isn't he putting together a pretty interesting career? Think about how many movies that this guy has done in the last 8 or 9 years that were either loudly fantastic performances or truly terrible films. He's also written some decently-received short stories and done some well-received theatre work. 

I say all of this to say, is Jesse Eisenberg the real James Franco? 

How do you feel about these type of films in general?  The long conversation piece between 2 or 3 characters. This is definitely it's own genre with a new entry every few years (My Dinner w/ Andre comes to mind, and the Before Midnight series of films). I tend to love these type of pieces, but it's certainly a tightrope to walk. As a far better critic than me, what makes these work when they work?

Brian Gill: I'm actually quite jealous of your cardigan game. I lack the joie de vivre required to pull off such fashion articles. Also Nike doesn't make cardigans and I don't want to violate the exclusive Nike endorsement agreement I'm sure to receive in the future. 

Brief Interviews was a fairly meh movie. Kind of your typical post-film school talkie. That material is better served, I think, on the stage over the screen. But Krasinski pulled in a great cast (I imagine because he is literally be nicest person in the entire world and everyone wants to work with him including me) and showed some flair behind the camera. He should probably do more of that and less "have terrible luck that routinely finds him taking roles that should be good but turn out to be a filmmakers worst effort ever." 

I want to continue the Segel conversation for a minute, though. I've been a fan for a long time, back to his days on Freaks and Geeks (RIP) and the early years of How I Met Your Mother before that show Robert Ford-ed its audience. I've always been impressed with his comedic versatility; the ability to jump from Forgetting Sarah Marshall to The Muppets while serving as the grounding force behind a popular sitcom is something special. But I didn't know he had this kind of performance in him. I'm interested to see if this is the kind of thing we can expect from him moving forward or if this was such a personal performance that it's kind of like catching lightning in a bottle. 

Regarding Eisenberg: He is very, VERY good at playing a certain type. I don't know that he has much range or the aforementioned versatility (the idea of him as Lex Luthor still makes me cringe) but when he's in his element, he can be excellent. To your point, he is fantastic in this, he deserved his Oscar nomination for Social Network, and Zombieland is one of the funniest movies of the past decade. 

The problem is (and perhaps this is unfair projection) he seems like he's at his best when he's playing some version of himself and his self is kind of a tool. So if he's playing a tool and the script isn't great or his performance is lacking or it's just not a great movie, I immediately turn on him and the movie as a whole. He's just so stinking confident in his toolishness. For me, he may always be someone whose talent I respect but whose films I will never truly look forward to. And sometimes I'll be surprised, like I was here or like I will be when Now You See Me: The Second Act sweeps the Oscars. 

Films like The End of the Tour, (mostly) two-person conversation pieces, occupy an odd space for me. I always enjoy them but I rarely seek them out. I think that's partly because I am, if nothing else, a "critic" for the common man and thus, I spend most of my movie watching time ingesting pop culturally-relevant films that my hypothetical audience cares about. But this is also an indictment of the limited release/art house theater process. I rarely have the occasion to see this type of film in a theater without driving 40 miles and any movie I watch at home usually gets between 60 and 70 percent of my ADD-riddled attention. I prefer to watch Insurgent (which is TERRIBLE) over My Dinner with Andre, despite knowing how far superior the latter is to the former, because I'm rarely able to just sit and watch a movie at home for two hours without getting distracted. So I get excited about these movies...and then I can't see them in a theater...and then I forget about them...and then when they finally are available to me, I think "Yeah but Hot Tub Time Machine 2 is also available so..." If more End of the Tour-like films were readily available at my local multiplex, I'd see far more of them and I'd love them, because when the chemistry is right, when the setting fits the characters, and when the writing allows the conversation to flow naturally, this is one of the more enjoyable film genres for me personally. 

Talk to me about Infinite Jest. What makes it such a life changing (or defining?) book? And since this is a movie blog, is it filmable?

Richard Bardon: Well I guess I'll have to order another Cardigans R Us gift card for someone for Christmas.  

I'll tackle your various interesting points in order:

Where and when did HIMYM fly off the rails for you? I watched the show in syndication exclusively, and enjoyed it, and was unaware of the notion of it pooping on its fan base. 

I think Segel is capable of more of these performances and I think a lot of that was already apparent in Forgetting Sarah Marshall which I one of the rangier comedic performances of the last ten or so years. I still think he writes best for himself and I don't know why he stopped after the Muppets. 

J. Daniel Atlas already stole the Academy Award envelope and put his name inside. It's already decided, my friend. 

I don't think Jest is remotely filmable--though I'd be willing to give it a shot as guess who has the rights? Parks and Rec creator and noted DFW super-fan Michael Schur. 

I assumed you'd like these type of films, I think the interview is a medium we share a love for and I wish it was portrayed on film more often.  I loved the set up of this film, even if it wasn't DFW-specific. 

Infinite Jest is just an insane tour de force that combines Wallace's humor, paranoia, grammarian/linguistics inclinations, and love of tennis into a singular narrative. I think the book is popular more for its force of intelligence than its plot. It's 3 separate but parallel stories about a tennis clinic, rehab clinic, and doomsday scenario that all tie together. Mostly, it discovered a type of novelistic voice that was previously unseen. For instance, the book has 200 pages of footnotes. This isn't an academic index either. It's notes on the text from the author. Basically, he's adding commentary and context as he writes. Like a pre-Wikipedia or genius.com. Flip through it next time you're at a bookstore, it's insane. 

Brian Gill:There is a very good chance that my son (who is 2) will never set foot in a bookstore by his own choosing. He's ventured into Barnes and Noble with me a time or two but it's very likely that he'll never drive himself to a bookstore to browse. How sad is that?

The HIMYM trainwreck is almost untouchable in its awfulness. I loved that show for the first 4ish seasons, enjoyed it for the next 3, tolerated season 8, and wanted to fight anyone and everyone involved with it during the last season. It stopped being truly funny about halfway through its run but did a very good job of handling the serious issues of growing up (a death, a character discovering they couldn't have kids, etc.). The whole thing ran out of steam in maybe season 7 and they just kept dragging a rotting carcass around for 50 more episodes. The last season is unquestionably the worst last season of a long running sitcom ever. It would be like if The Office decided Jim should cheat on Pam with Meredith and then acted like that's what we were hoping for the whole time. It was basically the exact opposite of Parks and Rec's Victory Tour final season and it tainted the entire show. I feel dirty every time I catch a rerun now. DFW would've killed himself all over again if he'd been alive to see it. (I'll edit that joke out, that's just for you.)

This is just a superb movie, dude. Such a smarter way of presenting a true to life story without going the full, tired biopic route. The difficulty level is much higher on this than a standard biopic but if it works, like this does, you end up with an excellent product. End of the Tour fits pretty well with Steve Jobs and Love & Mercy as this year's examples of the way to build a better biopic. Loved it. 

THE BEST AND WORST OF JAMES BOND

Today marks the debut of Spectre, the 26th Bond film (counting the original Casino Royale which might not even be a real movie but go with me here) and with it comes approximately 100 billion James Bond lists. Step onto your front porch, pick up a stick and throw it…BAM! You just hit someone who wrote a definitive list of the James Bond films this week. (Lawsuit pending, sorry for the prompt.) And hey, a new Bond movie is a big deal. Spectre ranked third on my list of most anticipated films this year and I think all of us here at Mad About Movies have been looking forward to it for quite some time. Putting together my own definitive ranking of Bond films, however, seemed both a bit derivative given all the aforementioned lists that are already out there and also impossible as I…uh…have not seen ALL of the Bond movies. *Ducks, dodges thrown martini glasses* I know, it’s weird. Any listener of this podcast knows I am a medically-diagnosed Completist. I’m not sure there is any pop culturally-relevant entity as big as Bond of which I have partaken in only in parts. It’s usually all or nothing. But it is what it is. So instead of a comprehensive list, I thought it might be more fun to gather the opinions of a few respected cohorts as well as you, the dear listener, on the best and worst of Bond.

I’ll let Richard kick us off since he was so kind to write an introduction for this piece.
 

RICHARD BARDON – Mad About Movies Co-Host, Humorist

I wouldn’t consider my knowledge of James Bond films—or the Fleming source material, for that matter—anything more than passing. I’ve seen about ten of the films and probably read three of the books. The universe that Bond inhabits seems even more random and cruel than the real one. Bond can—from film-to-film—be thrilling, boring, sexy, eye-rolling, violent, campy, hilarious, and captivating more than any series of movies I can think of. The range of quality in these films is larger than any other series and it’s especially interesting considering this range is achieved all while following the same general formula (Dashing spy + gun + babes + villain + cunning + gadgets + car, all shaken together, never stirred).

The recipe, unlike most things at a bar, has mixed results. The variance is extreme. In a lot of ways, it keeps the series interesting.

BEST BOND: Connery, right? I actually don’t think Daniel Craig is that fabulous of a Bond (heresy, I know), I just think he’s had the fortune to not ruin some exceedingly good Bond films. Connery had the ability to make lesser Bond films watchable. Craig succeeds in system, Connery defines a system. I’ll turn to football for an analogy: Craig is Russell Wilson. Connery is Tom Brady. (Lazenby is Blaine Gabbert.)

WORST BOND: Dalton is pretty bad. I’m not a Roger Moore fan, either. I’ll actually use this space to talk about Pierce Brosnan. He seems divisive as a Bond, and I have to admit I’m a fan. I don’t think the movies (and their strict, late-90’s aesthetic and atmosphere) ever live up to the quality performance that Brosnan brought. He was the most believably wry Bond, which is to his everlasting credit. (To continue the NFL theme going, Brosnan is Archie Manning.)

BEST BOND FILM: Every single frame of Skyfall is perfect. It’s a top three blockbuster of the last ten years (The Dark Knight, Avengers, and Inception being its only competition for the #1 spot). It channels the very best of what Craig, Mendes, and, especially, Deakins have to offer. It’s fantastic.

WORST BOND FILM: There are worse, but I really hate Quantum of Solace. What a disappointment after the thrills of Casino Royale. Plus, Jack White was involved and the movie sucked. That hurt the worst.
 

JASON DAVIDSON – Mad About Movies Contributor, Acclaimed Actor

BEST BOND: Connery. Daniel Craig is certainly the better actor by almost every tangible measure. Connery has him beat on basic charisma and screen presence, but I think that argument is closer than many would be willing to admit.  But Connery had to originate and define the role. And he did it on such a grand scale that the franchise didn’t just survive the Roger Moore era, fans were still actively clamoring for a new Bond film (with a Bond more like Connery). Here’s the argument in a different context. There are some incredible guitarists out there. Guys who can play faster, cleaner and more melodic than Jimi Hendrix. Is any one of them greater?  No. Jimi is why they play electric. Connery is why we watch Bond films.

WORST BOND: Moore. I wanted to be clever and make an argument for Timothy Dalton, but I can’t. Moore certainly isn’t the only Bond to suffer with inconsistencies between films (looking at you, Brosnan), but he’s also captaining the worst iteration of the character. Moore’s Bond is a silly fop in a franchise that requires considerable style and attitude.

BEST BOND FILM: Skyfall. Film as art.  Skyfall takes a well-defined Bond, played by an inspired Daniel Craig, and drops him into a cinematic masterpiece.  I think this film is the height of the franchise. For the first time in the series, we have a film that is an excellent blend of modern filmmaking precision, while still being true to the spirit and character of James Bond.

WORST BOND FILM: Moonraker. This movie has everything; Space, Lasers, Jaws marrying a tiny woman with pigtails. Ugh. But, shockingly, this movie won awards for its special effects and was the highest grossing film in the franchise for a while. Star Wars was a game changer and in the late 70’s, everyone wanted to crank out sci-fi films because viewers couldn’t get enough. So...Bond chucked all sense of purpose and reason in order to capitalize. “Hey everyone, it’s Bond... AAAAAND it’s Star Wars! Come see it!”  And people did.  Many, many people.  It’s nothing more than campy sci-fi. It’s the worst Bond film, because it’s not a Bond film.
 

DANNY GILL – Mad About Movies Listener, Creator of Nerds (My Dad)

BEST BOND: Sean Connery. Daniel Craig is a fairly close second, but Connery will always be James Bond to me. He played the role with a self-deprecating lightness that hid a real core of danger. Craig’s Bond is good, but grittier, and I think that’s not quite how the character should be.

WORST BOND: Roger Moore. George Lazenby doesn’t really count. Moore was way too campy as Bond, and I could never take him seriously.

BEST BOND FILM : Thunderball. Good writing, and perhaps the most believable of the old Bond plots. The underwater scenes were great. Skyfall was perhaps my second favorite, but it’s a totally different kind of film, and it doesn’t really seem to fit the James Bond mold as well as the earlier movies do.

WORST BOND FILM: That’s a hard one. There were so many that were bad throughout the Roger Moore years. Maybe a toss-up between Live and Let Die (Mr. Big was just a terrible villain), and Moonraker. But you can have any of the Roger Moore movies.
 

BRIAN GILL – Mad About Movies Co-Host, the James Bond of Drinking Red Bull

BEST BOND: In a two man race, I have Connery edging out Craig by a nose. Craig might actually be the best and were I to rank all the Bond movies, I think the top five would be Craig-heavy. But Connery IS James Bond. When I picture James Bond, it’s Sean Connery (topless and in short trunks but that’s neither here nor there). Plus, he gets credit for being the first and starting the whole thing off on the right foot. Mad Men might be a better TV show than The Sopranos but The Sopranos gets credit for being the first of the Golden Age shows.

WORST BOND: I haven’t seen all (most?) of the Moore films so maybe I can’t fully appreciate his awfulness. I can, however, appreciate the awfulness of Pierce Brosnan. To his credit, his last three Bond romps would’ve been bad with literally anyone in the tuxedo but he also doesn’t do anything to salvage them. His brand of smug, too, seemed to almost revel in how painful his movies were.

BEST BOND MOVIE: For the record, my answer is actually Skyfall and it’s not particularly close. But since that film is very well represented on this list, I’ll make the case for Casino Royale. Coming off the disastrous Brosnan tenure, there was an entire generation of movie watchers who either didn’t care about Bond or outright disliked the notion of another Bond film. I was personally extremely skeptical/nonplussed by its announcement. But Casino Royale is such a tremendous departure from the previous entries and reinvigorated both a franchise and a fanbase. But yeah, it’s Skyfall.

WORST BOND MOVIE: There are several acceptable answers here. Die Another Day got a TON of mentions from the listeners (see below) but I cannot remember that movie at all (possibly because I Total Recall-ed myself) and thus, I have to go with The World is Not Enough if for no other reason than Denise Richards playing Doctor Christmas Jones. DOCTOR!!! Top that off with the most cringe-worthy double entendre in the history of film standing as the LAST LINE OF THE MOVIE…I can’t do it, you guys.
 

THE LISTENERS – All-Around Glorious, Wonderful People

First of all, thanks to all of you who tweeted, Facebooked, and emailed us your Bond thoughts. It’s still amazing to me the quantity and quality of responses we get whenever we throw a question out to you.

You are all the real MVPs.

BEST BOND: The vast majority of you were, like myself, torn between Connery and Craig. (For what it’s worth, no one voted for Brosnan or Lazenby so…) Around 45% of the vote went to Craig, while Connery took home close to 40%. Two brave souls, Eric Kurt and Eric Bishop, went Independent and put their votes behind Moore. Power to the people! Linda Zhu voted for Dalton because, “He’s the closest to the literary Bond” and let me know there are literally “DOZENS!” of Dalton supporters. Much like Never

Nudes, I fear your kind may never be fully legitimized.

WORST BOND: I was SHOCKED that Brosnan’s name only appeared on a handful of the ballots. (Also for what it’s worth, Connery and Craig received zero votes in this category.) I’ve demanded a recall; we’ll see what the judge decides. Lazenby and Moore each took home their fair share of the vote but somehow Dalton came out as the leader in the “Worst” clubhouse. I hope you all know that you’ve made a lifelong enemy out of Linda Zhu today.

BEST BOND FILM: Unsurprisingly, Skyfall came out on top, with Casino Royale following in as a close second. Goldfinger, which I think was long considered the best Bond film before Craig came around and muddied the water, got plenty of attention as well, with “The Eric Vote” (Kurt and Bishop, respectively) going to the Moore collection. Heroes, you both are.

WORST BOND FILM: This one was more divisive. Connor agreed with Richard and stated that his “nap was better than” Quantum of Solace. Several listeners named Moonraker and The Man with the Golden Gun received a handful of mentions. Tobin Hodges and Christiane Le each compared The World is not Enough to Threat Level Midnight and instantly became my favorite listeners of all time. But the overwhelming favorite for the crown was Die Another Day. (Shout out to Gary L. for the funniest response to this query, though I can’t mention it here due to its graphic nature.) You guys really, REALLY hated that movie. Somewhere Halle Berry is crying.

Thanks again to all who participated and contributed to this blog! Here’s hoping Spectre is more Casino Royale and less Moonraker!