This may be considered sacrilegious to say but I'm going to say it: GoldenEye would have been a better film if Timothy Dalton had been able (or allowed) to return for his 3rd entry in the series of 007 films. Yeah, I get it, people seemed to really enjoy Pierce Brosnan at the time, and GoldenEye's success can't be underestimated for extending the life of the series into the 21st century.

That being said, for my money, this is really as good a time as any to make this case given I've not seen more fonder memories of Dalton's tenure as 007 than I have in recent memory. Maybe it has something to do with Daniel Craig being so popular now as James Bond, while playing the role very similar to the way Dalton did back in 1987 and 1989 with that harder edge style, or maybe it's just the age old concept that time heals wounds. Audiences simply weren't ready for an authentic version of Ian Fleming's character back in the late 80s. They were more comfortable with the guy who almost looked the part of a JC Penney sock department salesman. (Sorry Roger Moore, we still love ya).

Either way, I'm going to lay out 5 reasons as to why Dalton would have truly made GoldenEye a better film than the one we got in 1995....