Bond. James Bond.

Bond. James Bond. #BondWatch Thursday May 26- Thursday June 16

This was quite a task. 24 movies in 3 weeks, most of which were painful to sit through. I owe myself a drink.
What might be more difficult than actually watching the films was deciding how to review them. By Actor? By Decade? Compare all 24? I went with dissection via actor. Let’s begin.

 

Sean Connery: The first to assume the role, arguably everyone’s favorite. He appears in 6 films. There is a 7th but it’s not part of the canon, it’s a stand alone. I didn’t watch it. I ranked them as follows:

1. From Russia With Love
2. Dr. No
3. Goldfinger
4. Thunderball
5. You Only Live Twice
6. Diamonds Are Forever

 

George Lazenby: Takes over for Connery and only appears in 1 film. This movie is the most divisive of the series. Fans either love or loathe this film. I fall into the loathe category.

1. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

 

Roger Moore: Folks seem to love him. He plays Bond for a record 7 movies, 12 years. He is 57 when the last one is filmed.

1. Live and Let Die
2. The Man with the Golden Gun
3. A View to a Kill (this is ranked so high bc it’s so over the top ridiculous, it’s amusing)
4. For Your Eyes Only
5. Octopussy
6. The Spy Who Loved Me
7. Moonraker

 

Timothy Dalton: He takes the role for only 2 films towards the end of the 80’s. They are mostly forgettable.

1. License to Kill
2. The Living Daylights

 

Pierce Brosnan: My first Bond. Goldeneye marks the first time since Connery that these movies are interesting.

1. GoldenEye
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. The World is Not Enough
4. Die Another Day

 

Daniel Craig: So much to debate over the blonde haired, blue eyed, mean mugged Bond. These films reset the franchise in a big way.

1. Casino Royale
2. Spectre
3. Skyfall
4. Quantum of Solace (can we pretend this movie never happened)

 

Moneypenny: I love this character and hope for so much more for her in future Bond films. Ranked my favorite Moneypenny’s.

1. Samantha Bond
2. Lois Maxwell
3. Caroline Bliss

Naomi Harris doesn’t make it on this list bc she’s fucking abysmal as Moneypenny and the character writing in those movies (especially Skyfall) is painful.

My Top 5 Fav Bond Girls:

1. Solitaire (Live and Let Die)
2. Agent XXX (The Spy Who Loved Me)
3. Vesper Lynd (Casino Royale)
4. Honey Ryder (Dr. No)
5. May Day (A View to a Kill)

 

Top 5 Favorite Bond Themes: these songs are generally awful so it isn’t hard to pick favorites.

1. James Bond Theme
2. Live and Let Die
3. Skyfall
4. GoldenEye
5. Goldfinger/ The Man with the Golden Gun

 

Observations: Most every Bond movie is complete with-

1. Underwater submarine or scuba diving excessiveness.
2. Skiing and snowy terrains in general.
3. Helicopter/airplane something or other.
4. Not enough Moneypenny.
5. Some terribly miscast female who often has more screen time than the well casted female.
6. Theme songs are generally awful.
7. Strange poker like casino game I have never seen.
8. Boats. Water. Boats. More water.
9. Q is awesome.
10. Always a cool car.
11. Bond gets captured and has some awkward resort like hostage situation.
12. Drinks more champagne and whiskey then he does Martini’s.

 

My Top 5 Films:

1. Casino Royale
2. Goldeneye
3. Spectre
4. From Russia With Love
5. Live and Let Die/Skyfall/ The Man with the Golden Gun

 

Worst 5 Films:

1. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
2. The Living Daylights
3. Moonraker
4. Diamonds Are Forever
5. Quantum of Solace

 

The ultimate question. Who is my favorite Bond? Sigh. I know I’m supposed to say Sean Connery. But, I can’t. It’s not his fault, it’s the time period and the content of those films. Had I watched them as a kid, I probably wouldn’t have an issue with them, and I tried to keep in mind the year they’re from… But the whole time I’m concerned James has an STD. I generally loathe the plot point of a woman being so beside herself over a man she met 5 minutes ago. I definitely attempted to just understand that was what I was getting into here. It’s just so over the top for me with Connery and I can’t get over it. I also didn’t love those movies in general. Roger Moore was fun and who doesn’t love the cheese the 80’s brings out in movies. While most are terrible, there is something fun about Morre’s Bond and I enjoyed him for the most part. Lazenby and Dalton aren’t even being discussed. Pierce Brosnan. I have a nostalgic love for him because he’s the first actor I ever saw play Bond. And (unpopular opinion) I do really like 3 of those films. To me, Pierce is the most handsome. He “looks” like James Bond to me and I’m sure that’s because I saw him first and I like the way he portrays Bond. Daniel Craig. So… Daniel is without question, from the neck down, the HOTTEST Bond. I take such issues with his face. I have no problem with the blonde hair and blue eyes (which are stunning), he’s just not cute. He reminds me more of a construction worker than a spy. He arguably looks best in Spectre (good makeup?). I enjoy his set of films the best. His gives zero fucks attitude as Bond is awesome. I believe he has no problem killing folks more than anyone who came before him. His Bond is more of a Jason Bourne meets Mission Impossible than he is James Bond and I like that. It’s more my style. So. In closing, my favorite Bond is a tie between Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.

Time to fetch me a martini

#JamesBond

Filibuster. #HoldtheFloor

So I’m sure yesterday you all saw on your Facebook, Twitter, or News apps mention of a Filibuster taking place in the Senate. I’m sure many of you were like “what the F is a filibuster?”
Filibuster in The US Senate- When a senator attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a bill by extending the debate on the measure. The rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture (a motion or process in parliamentary procedure aimed at bringing debate to a quick end).
Yesterday, Connecticut Junior Senator Chris Murphy “held the floor” for almost 15 hours. He did not break once to eat or use the facilities but maintained control of the floor until the GOP agreed to allow a vote on a proposed gun control measure. “I am proud to announce that after 14+ hours on the floor, we will have a vote on closing the terror gap & universal background checks”.
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, has said he and his GOP colleagues are open to legislation that would ban such sales (to people on the terror watch list, no fly list, felons, etc) but only if it includes due process protections for individuals listed to appeal their gun ban. This is called progress. This is called compromise.
We tend to lean towards skepticism when it comes to politicians. Most of us widely believe they aren’t trying to make a difference in OUR lives, but in their own. Most of us believe that they are all money-grubbing, power hungry people. Yesterday, Senator Murphy, I think, proved that is not the case for every politician. He stood and spoke for almost 15 hours because he passionately believes in something. Whether you agree with him or not isn’t the point. He represented everything that is good and right about our system. He spoke for hours and in the end, he wasn’t just shut down.
What I ask you to do for yourselves today is call your Senator. Be a part of the process. Whether you are calling to ask your Senator to vote yes or vote no. Make the call. It takes 5 minutes. If you feel so strongly one way or the other, don’t hit the internet with a meme about it. Call your Senators.

 

Contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

 

“I am calling to ask you to vote yes/no on the gun vote”
Be a part of the process.

The 2nd Amendment

This is not meant to start hateful banter on my page, more so meant as a think-piece. Read what I have to say and really think about it. It’s long, I’m sorry. If you make it to the end, I applaud you. And remember that at the end of all things, you are not changing my opinion and maybe I’m not changing yours, but give it a read.
I’ll begin by stating that I am a NYS pistol permit holding Citizen. I have 6 handguns. Those 6 handguns are stored in a safe to which I am the only person with the combination. The small collection of bullets for said handguns reside in a separate safe to which I am the only person with the combination. I enjoy going to the range and shooting the target. It’s a skill. It’s something I’ve done since I was a young person. My father taught me at a young age to respect firearms, to handle them properly, and all the safety measures and precautions in regards to firearms.
I would also like to state, that as a law abiding citizen, when I went to get my permit, I had to go to a 5 hour “gun safety” course. My take away from that course was, if you shoot someone on your property, drag them into your house. I had to get 3 signatures (just signatures. No reference letter. You need reference letters to get into college) on my form and got fingerprinted at the Sheriff’s office. That’s it. I didn’t even have to appear in court the day the judge issued me my permit. And bear in mind, NY is considered a “strict” gun law state.
I would like to offer that had the nice old lady at the county clerks office handed me a list of approved psychiatrists and said “your paperwork will be filed once we receive your evaluation from the doctor”, I would have gladly done so. And had it been required of me to appear in court to express why I wanted a pistol permit, I would have gladly done so as well. And had I needed to attend a course at the range to demonstrate that I was responsible and capable of handling a firearm, I would have gladly done that too.
This may seem “crazy” to some folks but consider that you have to take a driving test in order to get a license to drive a car. You have to demonstrate the ability to operate a vehicle in a safe and responsible manner before the state of New York (or any state) will issue you a drivers license. Just one example of the many things that are regulated (take note of the word regulated) by the state and federal government in order to ensure the safety of US citizens.
I’ve seen a bunch of people posting this little blurb about someone on line in the grocery store. I just sort of smile because I wonder how many of you posting it have a handgun. You. Actually you, not your police officer family member, but you. Also I’m curious if you know how difficult it is to obtain a concealed carry permit in NYS. You have to exhibit just cause for such a thing and most times will be told “are you a police officer? Than you don’t need to be carrying your handgun around at all times.” That was my other take away from my 5-hour course. I also wonder how many of you would have the balls to shoot another person. Actually fire a gun at someone else. In a state of panic, even to protect yourself, could you take a life? I don’t know that I could.
Now. I have a query. Do you honestly believe that arming MORE citizens will make the world a safer place? Like no really. I want you to imagine a scenario. Let’s use this grocery store. Someone comes in shooting up the place and say 10 people are carrying their handgun and all 10 people open fire at once. You really think less folks are getting shot? You really believe all 10 of those people are going to be cool, calm, and collected while brandishing their firearm to stop the bad guy? If you believe that, then we are in a bad place. I interact with people all day long. Most of them can’t tie their shoes, but I should trust them with a handgun? No.
But you know what, all of this is a matter of opinion, I suppose. And if you believe every single one of your fellow man is capable of snuffing out the bad guys in a moment of panic, well you are far less skeptical than I and maybe I should applaud you for it.
Let’s chat for a moment about the highly debated 2nd Amendment. Here’s where I kind of feel like we should really take a step back and just evaluate what it all means.
The 2nd Amendment, written by James Madison, brought to the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, went through some edits and was ratified by 3/4’s of the states on December 15, 1791. Now remember at this time there is no formal police force, rather sheriffs that are mostly volunteer. In the event of an emergency, a local militia of armed vigilantes would intervene. May 1792, Congress passes the first act of National Defense in which it states that every able bodied man of a certain age must obtain a firearm and appear if called upon to defend his state. This has a lot of problems, too many to discuss and this post is already long, but you didn’t come here for a history lesson, right? Feel free to google for more information. The Internet and all its flaws is there to help.
So back to #2. The text states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

So here we are. 1791. No official police force to speak of, counting on the individuals of the country to maintain safety. “The Security of the Free State” rests in the hands of the people, because, remember, there is no official law enforcement in place. So yes, your firearms are to keep you safe. Because currently there is no one appointed to do so.
“A well regulated (there’s that word)…” Regulated. What does regulate mean? Let’s check with Merriam Webster.
Regulate:

to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)
to bring (something) under the control of authority

to make rules or laws that control (something)

Bring under control of authority. Make rules or laws that control.
“A well CONTROLLED UNDER AUTHORITY milita”
Now it would appear to me that our founding fathers meant that the 2nd amendment would give its citizens the right to bear arms, with rules and regulations set by the government. I mean that’s what regulate means right?
So. Regulated militia. Security of the free state. Does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Listen, I have the 2nd Amendment reproduction in a frame on my piano in my living room. I respect it. I honor it. And I believe in it. It doesn’t mean you are allowed to have a free for all with any firearm you please.
NO ONE is trying to take your guns away. They’re trying to set rules and regulations in an effort to keep everyone safe. And isn’t that what the 2nd Amendment was for in the first place? Law abiding citizens aren’t being told to hand over their weapons. You’re being asked to follow some rules. And if you can’t follow rules, than maybe you shouldn’t have firearms in the first place. If you’re not planning on murdering anyone, then you shouldn’t have any problems registering your firearms. And trust me, you don’t need a semi-automatic rapid fire rifle to protect your home. Are you expecting an invasion of 100 people? If you are, perhaps you should hire professional security. There are places you can go and try out these “fun” weapons and be all “oooo I shot the oozy!” And take pictures with your friends and it’s all fun and good times. You don’t need one in your home. You just don’t. And please don’t give me the hunting excuse. If you can’t shoot the deer, bear, etc in 1-3 shots then maybe you should take up a new hobby because you suck. Are you trying to eviscerate the animal? You want to take the meat home to eat, right? Mount it on the wall? You don’t want 30 bullets ripping the carcass apart. You want to take them down in 1 clean shot. 2 if necessary.
This isn’t the Wild West. You are not Wyatt Earp and we are not having a shoot out at the O.K. Corral. This is 2016 and no, gun control reform isn’t going to miraculously stop people from getting guns; it isn’t going to miraculously stop people from getting shot. Nothing in the world is so black and white but I know I would feel a lot safer knowing that any tom, dick, or Harry can’t just go buy an AR-15 at a gun show and walk home with it. Yes, people will still do crazy things and still try to harm other people, but doesn’t it make sense to attempt to make it more difficult for the mentally unstable people of this world to get their hands on a gun?

#LoveisLove

I’ve been trying to keep a low profile on this political front bc it evokes an entitled sense of folks to come on someone else’s page and tell them why their opinion is wrong and while I may post what I want, you are free to do the same and I’m not going to come for you, but I digress.
The reaction to this horrific situation in Orlando has been very upsetting to me. Everyone is quick to claim terrorism. Quick to blame an outside threat. I’m having a difficult time grappling with the idea that if ISIS is planning an attack, they’re selecting a gay club. Yes I understand that under Sharia law homosexuality is punishable by death, but ISIS means to target us as a country. I see them picking a court house full of people, Disney World, a mall before a gay club in Orlando. ISIS also has a history of claiming responsibility for things that they may have had nothing to do with directly. This man may have invoked the name of ISIS as his reasoning but I’m not sure I believe he’s a member of ISIS. What I do believe is this was an act of hate. His father said he was angered when he saw 2 men kissing and a few weeks later he murders 50 people in a gay club. 

 

I have a problem with us as a society being so outraged over something we ourselves have bred. We want to grab our pitch forks and crucify Islam/Muslims over this mans hatred, but we have allowed this kind of hate from our own. Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. Stoning in the physical sense isn’t “allowed”, though it still happens, we excuse it with “well it’s what they believe”. And yes we are all entitled to our beliefs, it’s what makes our country so great. But we will excuse and brush aside hatred from our own, while condemning hatred from “outside”. Neither type of hatred is ok. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their opinions but NOT at the expense of someone else’s safety.

 

The angry mob has assembled behind their fearless leader, Donald Trump. Trump is waving his fists in the air, begging for justice. Funny coming from a man who told Fox News if he gets elected, he would appoint judges to overturn same-sex marriage. Take that as you will.
I don’t believe this is solely a terrorist issue. It’s a hate issue. A hate that we have allowed. A hate, that has made considerable strides in recent years, but still exists. These victims were at a gay club, why? Because they still don’t feel comfortable going to a “straight” club. They still don’t feel accepted. They were vulnerable to an attack because we allow it. The same way children are vulnerable to attacks at school, because we allow it. The same way that black men and women are targeted and treated differently, because we allow it. The same way a privileged white man can get away with raping a young woman, because we allow it. We MUST do better for each other. We are all human. We MUST protect each other.

#LoveisLove