"Bond. James Bond."

MSN's Web site home page recently included an item about how viewers of the movie "Skyfall" found 24 incongruities in the film.  These include the mysterious rising and falling of the liquor level in a glass over several different takes, and the swapping of loafers for laced shoes while scuffling atop a fast-moving train.

So what?  Of more interest to me is why anyone would pay today's movie ticket prices to sit in a theater and concentrate on finding fault instead of on the flow of the plot.  It's fiction, stupid!

I can understand faulting flaws in historical films.  If a movie pretends to history, it ought to at least be factual.  But fiction?  Who cares?!

"Skyfall" brought up the inevitable comparisons with previous James Bond flicks.  Every critic of the film whose review I've read all opined that it's the best Bond movie since "Goldfinger".  Well, I watched "Goldfinger" a couple of evenings ago.  "Goldfinger" sucked.

The problem with "Goldfinger" is that many of its scenes were contrived for their "wow" factor, rather than logical threading of the plot line.  For instance:

* Goldfinger assembles leaders from various mobs at his palatial estate to brief them on his plan to break into Ft Knox.  One of the bosses opts out.  Goldfinger loads his promised cut of gold bullion into the trunk of a car, to which the mobster is escorted.  Odd Job, Goldfinger's all-around handythug for, well, odd jobs, drives him away, shoots him, and takes him to an auto junkyard where the car, body, and gold are scrunched into a cube by a compressor.  When the cube is delivered to Goldfinger, he excuses himself to separate the mobster from his gold.  Huh?

* He uses an array of state-of-the-art electronic visual aids, including scale models and maps, to brief the mobsters and then kills them all.  Why bother to tell them what's going on if he's going to whack them?

* Both Bond and Pussy Galore, oblivious to the g-forces of a rapidly plunging jet, find time to retrieve parachutes rarely found aboard executive jets, put them on, and punch out before the plane slams into some body of water or other.

The movie also showcased some of the worst acting I've ever witnessed in a big-budget film.  For example, the aforementioned death scene of the mobsters displayed hams dying with such gyrations, spasms, and reflexive twitches as to make you think you're watching a farce.

"Thunderball" was a much better movie than "Goldfinger", but neither comes close to "Skyfall".  "Skyfall" keeps it real!  How important is that in movie fiction?  Well, compare the first three Batman movies with the last three.  Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer were okay as the caped crusader, but the scripts were terrible.  No one can fault the acting ability of Jack Nicholson, but really--his Joker compared with Heath Ledger's?  Not Jack's fault.  He was stuck with a horrible scripot and just made the best of it.  And hundreds of penguins packing rockets and infrared eye pieces?  Seriously?

"Skyfall" also begs the inevitable question:  Who is the best James Bond?  Depends on the script.  Sean Connery is a ladies' man; Daniel Craig is a man's man.  Sean seduces, Daniel is seduced.  Connery gets to the bad guy by banging his women; Craig gets there by banging through his obstacles.  Connery is all about sublety; Craig doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

The latest version of James Bond is less gimmicky than those previous, the villains more realistic.  No kitty-stroking megalomaniacs, no golden gun wielders with three nipples.  Rather, think a very gay Anton Chigurh sporting a blond wig.

"Skyfall" is the best Bond movie ever.  Don't waste a second looking for non-plot-related flaws.  Just enjoy the ride.  Okay, Rex?