Bond plots as a game (Eco says all these moves appear in the whole set of novels -- but not all in each novel, and not always in this order) 
(a) M moves and gives a task to Bond 
(b) Villain moves and appears to Bond 
(c) Bond offers first check to villain 
(d) Woman moves and shows self to Bond 
(e) Bond consumes woman 
(f) Villain captures Bond or woman 
(g) Villain tortures Bond 
(h) Bond conquers villain 
(i) Bond convalesces, enjoys and loses woman 

Comments on Eco
As I indicated, I quite admire this sort of approach which is nice and systematic and helps us go beyond mere personal opinion ('why I like Bond'). I think that if you try it out, it fits Bond novels pretty well. Of course, that is also a problem -- Eco's approach leaves out an awful lot of detail, especially what might be called 'content' (since it emphasises 'form'). This might be a problem especially when we shift to looking at films and note their changes in content. You might also want to argue with the structuralist manner of ignoring individual authors or, indeed, readers and their meanings. Other problems arise from using rival approaches, of course. Eco is not critical enough, perhaps? There is a kind of political commentary in the piece, detectable in terms like 'Bond consumes woman', or the clear implication that Bond novels are racist (try the novel Goldfinger and its appalling commentary on 'Asiatics'). Structuralists of that period did ally themselves with marxism (since dominant groups also controlled the means of myth-making) - but not clearly enough for some critics (like Bennett, below) 

Second Approach - gramscian -Bennett in U203 (1982)

In this influential course U203, Popular Culture (Open University 1982), Bennett went on to develop and simplify Eco's work, and make it more marxist (more gramscian to be precise). The idea of a code at work in Bond novels (still novels, although there are references to the films too) has become focused on particularly ideological matters. So, there is: 

a sexist code There are obviously sexist moments when pretty girls appear scantily clad (and see  the file on pleasures ),and there are sexist narratives too. One major element consists of Bond as the representative of heterosexuality dealing with women who are non-heterosexual (or 'deviant') in some way. Such women may be excessively virginal (Honeychile Rider, as the book called her), or probably lesbian (Pussy Galore or Tilly Masterton). I will leave you to speculate about the innuendo implied by naming the heroine Solitaire in Live and Let Die. Bond deals with these women by seducing them, and this is enough to restore their normality, and, often recruit them to his side or at least wean them away from the villain. In this way, 'out of place' girls are restored to normality both sexually and politically. 

an imperialist code Britain retains her superiority and finds a new role post-War and post-Empire. The struggles on the new world stage are personalised, of course, as Bond competes with both Russians and Americans. He outwits them both with his flair and eccentricity, despite their superior organisation or resources. The flexibility of the Bond formula permits new challenges to be dealt with too - as international terrorism emerges, the plot changes from Bond against SMERSH (a Soviet organisation) to Bond against SPECTRE (an internationalist threat), and back again as the Cold War revives. 
Of course, Bond is also able to deal effortlessly with other lesser ethnic groups - like Afro-Caribbean ('West Indian') hoodlums, Asiatics, Mexicans - since he is cool and rational, while they are irrational, superstitious, panicky, prone to meaningless violence or just 'subhuman'. Germans are cold and calculating, of course, while Greeks are warm and friendly, but rather 'ethnic'. 
The racism in Fleming is deeply rooted and emerges in the odd views about the importance of 'breeding' and legitimacy in humans as well as in racehorses - Dr No is of mixed descent and cannot trace his father, for example. (Bennett notes that the villains are often physically flawed too, with artificial hands, for example. In the movies, Zorin in A View to a Kill is both an albino and the result of a genetic experiment ). Bond is ,of course, a perfect physical specimen, and, as we see below, Bond also shows the proper way to behave with fathers, in his interplay with M. M represents Britishness too, of course, with his office and his naval background. 

the phallic code. Here, Bennett develops some Freudian readings of Bond movies (I'm not really sure why, except that it was fashionable at the time to incorporate Freud into both marxist and feminist readings in the tradition from which Bennett came). At one level, this is rather superficial - we spot the freudian symbols in the Bond movies, such as the guns (phalluses) or the Oedipal moments in the byplay with M (M is the father who both makes Bond potent by authorising his missions or giving him guns [often bigger guns than he has now - geddit?], and M also regulates the sexuality of Bond, disapproving of his adventures with women, and in particular insisting Bond keeps his hands off his woman -- Moneypenny). 
At another level, Bennett is developing a freudian analysis of desire and of subjectivity (which was to develop still further in the third approach below - and see  file on Freud and cinema  These explain some of the unconscious pleasures in the Bond movie - the delight of gazing at women (and at Bond), and the mechanisms of interpellation (see Althusser file ) or 'positioning' ( see realism file) 

Comments on Bennett (1982)
I feel pretty mixed about this work, really. Again it is ingenious and insightful, but also a little formal and forced. This analysis took place in the middle of a whole course that I personally read as having some sort of agenda to claim the whole field for gramscian work, and Bennett seems as interested in making theoretical points as in actually tangling with the texts. Thus he admits himself that there could be other codes at work (the able-bodied/disabled one I hinted at above), but never tells us why he chooses these ones as specially important - I suspect it was because that was the way he had been trained and also that he wanted to claim more ground for gramscianism (all academics do this too, of course - they all need to push forward with their research programmes) I have developed this complaint against the entire OU course in Harris (1992) - in other words, I wish to push forward my critique of gramscianism too!!. 
There is also the issue of the differences between the novels and the movies here, which Bennett and Woollacott were to address more fully later on (see below). The novels are pretty blatantly racist, for example - but the movies generally much less so (maybe - certainly in the case of Goldfinger), and the ambiguous sexuality theme is probably less obvious too. On the other hand, films provide much more imagery with which to work, so to speak (and have their own systems of signification and representation as we shall see). Maybe Bennett is still thinking here that novels are somehow more relevant for analysis, or more fundamental? (There was a strange reluctance to tangle with TV or films in the early analysis, and a kind of literary approach persisted for a long time even later). 
Finally, this is an old-fashioned 'centred' reading of the ideological structures of a text, using privileged concepts (in gramscianism) to unpack the 'real' meanings of the piece: the audience's actual readings are not considered (for very good reasons - Bennett (1980) argued that 'the audience' was an awkward concept, which presupposed that the viewers possessed meanings independently of texts, somehow 'outside' of the flow of textuality which surrounded them - a classic structuralist argument against the notion of independent 'subjects'). 
The centred reading misses much detail,of course. I think it is perfectly possible to read Bond films in terms of realism, for example, so that all the talk about guns (and cars and aircraft, and Intelligence or military procedures) adds to the authenticity of the scenes, without having to invoke any deeper freudian meanings. On a more trivial note, I find my own pleasures vary according to details like the settings, which vary in their ability to engage my fantasies. 

Third Approach - 'post-structuralist' -- Bennett and Woollacott (1987) 

Bennett's later work represents a considerable change of emphasis from his 1982 writing. This can be annoying, but it does happen, I am afraid, and it is important to be careful to remember the differences between the 1982 Bennett and the 1987 Bennett and Woollacott (hereinafter known as B&W). Some things remain the same, but there is a new theoretical resource, one which had made a considerable impact everywhere - we'll call it 'post-structuralism'. 
Basically, analysts came to see that it was increasingly difficult to insist on one 'centred' reading of a film, using only the privileged concepts suggested by marxism, freudianism or classic structuralism with its established codes and binaries. This sort of doubt about the foundations of all academics had held dear previously was to end in the radical challenge of postmodernism (see  my file  on this). 
Post-structuralist challenge was in the air even while U203 was still trying to hang on to gramscianism. I want to trace some themes here using the work of Barthes (1977) (although Foucault would probably do too). I have discussed some key essays in Barthes in Harris (1996), and if you want to see this discussion in a fuller version  click here

If you want to carry on for a bit with B&W, I can summarise the main implications of Barthes' work pretty drastically as two main points: 

1. Since there is so much textuality around in modern societies, it is impossible to ignore the relations between texts (intertextuality) when trying to grasp their meaning. Texts are endlessly citing and referring to each other as well as trying to represent something about the world. Thus instead of the 'old semiology' which tried to unpack central ideological meanings in texts, we need a new semiology which understands actual texts as mere moments in a sea of textuality, and oppose any attempt to fix meanings once and for all. 
2. The reader's role is crucial in unpacking and in fixing these meanings. However, we don't need to see readers as concrete individuals. Readers too are really only moments in the seas of textuality (as are authors). Barthes himself demonstrates how skilled readers can unpack many levels or layers of meaning in a kind of poetic rendition of a text, especially with those texts that delight in ambiguous or playful language. 

B & W want to use this insight to rethink Bond films (specifically and at last) as 'relatively autonomous' texts with their own history of film-making, and not just as containers for codes or for ideology. They want to investigate the textuality itself, the processes of making sense, of signifying (not just representing) that runs in and through Bond films.They are able to do this partly because they have spent some time observing the production team at work, and have caught them signifying, so to speak. 
As any Media student knows, you can't just use a novel as a source for a film, since novels work with words and not visual images, for example (not to mention images with simultaneous sound). Someone has to select or construct images to convey meaning. Not surprisingly, professional film-makers (including actors) do this by drawing on the original novel AND other novels, films, TV plays or poems they have experienced. It is easy to spot examples of this in the Bond films. The gangster meetings, where one gangster is surprised and killed, (I believe this is called the 'Sicilian vespers' sequence) come from other gangster films. The threats to Bond often have a long history (laser beams for him to modernise the usual circular saw)The car chases, love scenes and stunts draw on many similar examples in other movies. Other contributions are more original - the decision to demonstrate visually Bond's skill at improvising by introducing gadgets and the character of 'Q' (neither of which are prominent in the novels). 
Increasingly (at least until Roger Moore retired), ironic references appear to other films (e.g. Jaws) or to earlier Bond films (the skiing sequence in A View… refers to the opening sequence in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). The filmic Pussy Galore was Honor Blackman, who brought something of her recent appearances in The Avengers to the part, and, of course, Roger Moore was already known as an ironic and cool Saint. 
B&W indicate something of the mechanisms which drive the Bond films towards certain changes in particular. As tastes change, the racism of the novels is diminished, for example, as is the confidence in and prominence of British virtues (which are openly mocked in A View…). The development of a global market for Bond is a major factor here too - many viewers will not be English middle-class males themselves and so would not understand the ways in which Bond judges a chap by his dress, choice of brandy, his car or skill at cards. As a result, the characters become more stereotyped, and the plots even more familiar and predictable. B&W argue that, as with other globally marketed work, the fate of Bond is to become an 'empty signifier', a figure so vaguely drawn that anyone, in any country, can identify with him by projecting meanings on to the character. 
There is also the need to modernise the films. In the novel, Goldfinger poses a real threat to the British economy (and thus to the world, of course!) by possessing illegally so much gold that he can destabilise the exchange rate of the pound (which was then tied to the price of gold). Such a threat would be meaningless out of this context, so the film version had Goldfinger trying to irradiate the USA's gold stocks, simply to raise the price for his own uncontaminated stock. Later still, in A View…, Zorin threatens the world's supply of microchips, not gold. 
The image of women has changed too, perhaps. In the early pieces, women helped Bond because they fell in love with him despite themselves, especially after sex, as we saw (e.g. Tatiana in From Russia With Love, Solitaire in Live and Let Die, or Pussy in Goldfinger). Certainly, there are stronger women in later Bond films (and not just old or ugly ones either), and they seem able to resist. Thus Mayday in A View… dominates Bond in bed and goes on to save the day while he watches (although it is because Zorin has betrayed her in love - and Zorin dominates her after a wrestling match). Of course, Mayday also dies - a classic filmic punishment for the transgressing woman - and she is otherwise so strange and unusual and exotic that she can hardly stand as a representative of (normal) women. 
And there are still plenty of conventional women even in the later pieces, such as the appalling Stacey (also in A View…), a classic film blonde who shrieks for James to save her from the fire, and swoons in his arms as he climbs down the fire ladder (and succumbs sexually in the shower at the end as usual). The attempts to develop feisty career women in GoldenEye also looked a bit suspect, I thought - the female 'M' who is 'punished' by being an unattractive bureaucrat, or the unpunished but also largely irrelevant and unlikeable young Moneypenny (and both  were downplayed for Tomorrow…). 
B&W also turn to the audience at last, indeed almost excessively so, having ignored them so fastidiously earlier. In a piece which is heavily influenced by Barthes (for my money), they suggest the audience actually now constitutes the text (not just interprets it but constructs it, using members' own inter-textual [with a hyphen] resources). Different individuals can be grouped together into 'reading formations' who will have shared inter-textual resources - middle class males of the 1960s for example - and these different formations will literally see different films. The production companies also know that the film is more than the actual bit of celluloid, since they will also suggest or try to fix dominant readings, using devices like publicity materials, posters or reviews ('textual shifters 'for B&W). Audience members (or rather their formations) will express readings according to different competencies and 'institutional practices' too. 
So-what happened to ideology? The implications of the new semiology were to lead to a major break with marxist and/or feminist and/or other 'centred' readings, of course. But B&W seem reluctant to abandon their old commitments altogether (especially feminism, as you have probably gathered). They still want to suggest that there is some correspondence between Bond films and political events, although it is still the rather vague old formula of 'surely no accident' we saw earlier. 

Comments on B&W (1987)
This book is a classic for me, even though it is difficult to read (even I am not sure I have entirely understood it, and I've read some terrible obscure stuff in my time). What I like about it is that it is honest enough to change its mind, and to admit that things are more complex, and to think the unthinkable (that centred readings might be untenable). Many gramscians have never got that far, and still cling to the old faiths, and spend their lives doing 'lazy theorising', fitting in every example to the subtleties (ambiguities?) of 'hegemony. Of course, B&W don't want to abandon their faith altogether, and that is OK - at least it is a more complex and more modest faith. 
I personally believe that the book represents one of the liberating results of leaving the Open University too - the OU insists that people only learn if all the ambiguities, doubts and arguments are either removed altogether, or managed in a heavy-handed manner (although I am not sure if Bennett has ever used his critical skills to rethink the institutional constraints on his work - few academics do, of course -- oh -- yes he has, in his new 1998 book). 
The book has led to new directions in many ways too (or so we thought). The concept of a 'formation', for example, led to a whole new movement almost (the Formations Group), and I have even flirted with it myself as a way of understanding different student readings of distance education material. Of course it had problems - as before, B&W seem to use it to raise the possibility of investigating audiences at last only to raise all sorts of problems with it as an empirical device to do research with. It seems to demonstrate possibilities, endless possibilities, without ever actually leading us to any concrete ones - it 'defers meaning' as a critic has put it. I still think it is more promising than the curiously popular tradition of audience research which has developed in the Media which takes a cheerfully empiricist view that real individuals have nice manageable opinions which you can ask them about no probs. 
Finally, it is debatable whether the Bond movies made after A View… (the last example discussed in B&W) bear them out or not. In many ways the first two (the Dalton Bonds) marked a return to 'straight' Bond formulae, I thought, even though there were obvious attempts to modernise (eg the villain as a Panamanian drug dealer) and clear references to other popular films (eg Indiana Jones) - but one predicted trend (towards irony) seemed not well developed. The same goes for the two (very different) Bonds since then (the Brosnan Bonds). GoldenEye followed the tradition of  taking a Fleming story as its foundation, and offered good old action sequences, threats of global domination (by the Russian Mafia this time), a dewy-eyed Russian female defector (and a strong but ultimately punished female villain). There were some self-referential comments on the Bond myth, but Bond was played pretty straight. Tomorrow Never Dies broke the mould by starting without a Fleming base (and without Cubby Broccoli), and seemed rather rootless and directionless even for a Bond as a result. It was filmed, I think in the modern mode, as a series of action scenes (presumably those chosen by the preview audience), with little attention to the narrative or to any attempt to develop a plot - more like the electronic game really. The only novelty seemed to have been Bond's choice of car - a German make for the first time (Bond now bats for Europe?). The team seems to have run out of ideas even for developing the Bond stunts, and the whole thing could have featured any action hero really. I thought A View… was the worst Bond I had ever seen, but Tomorrow… pips it easily. Maybe the novels were essential after all? 

References
Barthes R (1977) Image-Music-Text, London: Fontana/Collins. 
Bennett T (1980) (A review) 'S. Clarke's One-Dimensional Marxism', Screen Education 36, 119-30 
Bennett T (1998) Culture: a reformers' science, London: Sage (see chapter 9) 
Bennett T and Woollacott J (1987) Bond and Beyond: the political career of a popular hero, London: Macmillan Education. 
Culler J (1976) Structuralist Poetics, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 
Eco U (1979) The Role of the Reader… London: Hutchinson 
Harris D (1992) From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure… London: Routledge. 
Harris D (1996) A Society of Signs? London: Routledge. 
Open University The (1982) Popular Culture(U203), Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 

Filmography
Try a nice electronic one --   www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~blkfam/film.htm