Got it, drummer! As I recall, Goldfinger said it to Bond when he had Bond strapped to a table and was about to bisect him with an industrial laser.

I thought Sean Connery was an outstanding Bond, and the first three movies, "Dr. No," "From Russia with Love," and "Goldfinger" were quite good. It was from then on that they went downhill and got more comic-booky. They got gadget happy, and the story couldn't get under way until Q, the mad scientist, supplied Bond with his newest equipment. "Thunderball" got kind of silly (Bond swimming underwater for long minutes on an oxygen tank no bigger than a cigar stuck in his mouth). "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" was not a half bad movie (followed the book fairly well, and it had the immense advantage of costarring Diana Rigg!), but even though George Lazenby seemed to be a competent enough actor, as Bond, he was just lack-luster, especially following a charismatic powerhouse like Connery.

I saw a couple of the ones with Roger Moore. Now, I've liked Roger Moore in other things, but one critic put it right where it is. He said, "Roger Moore plays James Bond like he's doing a drawing room comedy." Unconvincing.

Then along came Timothy Dalton. I had seen Dalton in the "Jane Eyre" miniseries, as Darnley in "Mary, Queen of Scots," as Heathcliff, and several other things, and I also heard that Dalton like the Ian Fleming novels, thought the movies had become too frivolous, and wanted to return Bond to Fleming's original concept. But apparently both movie folks and fans thought he played Bond much too seriously. I thought he was great, but script-wise, he had only pabulum to work with.

Pierce Brosnan? Lightweight.

Don Firth