Skyfall Discussion (spoilers allowed)

[The Sweeney]

How was that character an undercover agent working against Quantum? Did the IMDB poster pull that out of thin air?

I also thought it odd when M confronted Bond over that incident in Quantum that Bond doesn't do the obvious and say, "He was alive when I left."

Eh? The man was an undercover agent working against Quantum. M says to Bond that he killed a member of Special Branch, which is what the man was.

Or am I missing something here...?

[The Saint 007]

I find Quantum Of Solace very difficult to follow/understand, and this comes from someone who is a fan of the 1960s TV series The Prisoner.

[Napoleon Solo]

How was that character an undercover agent working against Quantum? Did the IMDB poster pull that out of thin air?

I also thought it odd when M confronted Bond over that incident in Quantum that Bond doesn't do the obvious and say, "He was alive when I left."

Eh? The man was an undercover agent working against Quantum. M says to Bond that he killed a member of Special Branch, which is what the man was.

Or am I missing something here...?

No, you're not, I was posting in a hurry when I shouldn't have. But I do remember that Bond saw the guy was still alive and walked away. He got shot to death a few moments later. Bond doesn't even bring it up when M

[Goldeneye]

Sorry, your post may have been interrupted by a repair program.

[Darth YAM]

In all fairness, Quantum of Solace was by all accounts a rushed work (Daniel Craig himself had to help write some of the scenes, and the rewrite was apparently sent in seconds before the deadline.)

I did like him crying when M dies. While it's fine not to agree with whether or not Craig is right, his character is certainly not a heartless sociopath. The impression I got is more the fact that he bottles up his grief and emotions and tries not to show it; he just makes sure to brutally take down the ones who kill his loved ones (Greene, the police chief who betrayed Mathis).

I liked From Russia with Love, GoldenEye, and many of the others. However, I also liked Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. He was

[Barry Niven]

How was that character an undercover agent working against Quantum? Did the IMDB poster pull that out of thin air?

I also thought it odd when M confronted Bond over that incident in Quantum that Bond doesn't do the obvious and say, "He was alive when I left."

Eh? The man was an undercover agent working against Quantum. M says to Bond that he killed a member of Special Branch, which is what the man was.

Or am I missing something here...?

Just because the dead guy was mentioned as being with Special Branch didn't make him an undercover ANYTHING without additional elaboration (that wasn't in the film). All it means to me is that he was assigned to guard that Guy Haines person who WAS a member of "Quantum", which made them both villains by default. Plus, the FACT that the bodyguard joined in with the other minions in chasing after Bond and SHOOTING AT HIM pretty much made him a "bad guy" and target for Craig-Bond's blundering thuggery.

And because the Craig-Bond was so dead-set on playing the rampaging, lone-wolf, on-the-run Bourne-wannabe, he avoided even the smallest effort to correct M's assumption that he actually killed the guy that Greene's flunkies finished off, which would've taken no more than TWO SECONDS for Craig-Bond to state. Jerk.

[The Sweeney]

How was that character an undercover agent working against Quantum? Did the IMDB poster pull that out of thin air?

I also thought it odd when M confronted Bond over that incident in Quantum that Bond doesn't do the obvious and say, "He was alive when I left."

Eh? The man was an undercover agent working against Quantum. M says to Bond that he killed a member of Special Branch, which is what the man was.

Or am I missing something here...?

Just because the dead guy was mentioned as being with Special Branch didn't make him an undercover ANYTHING without additional elaboration (that wasn't in the film). All it means to me is that he was assigned to guard that Guy Haines person who WAS a member of "Quantum", which made them both villains by default. Plus, the FACT that the bodyguard joined in with the other minions in chasing after Bond and SHOOTING AT HIM pretty much made him a "bad guy" and target for Craig-Bond's blundering thuggery.

And because the Craig-Bond was so dead-set on playing the rampaging, lone-wolf, on-the-run Bourne-wannabe, he avoided even the smallest effort to correct M's assumption that he actually killed the guy that Greene's flunkies finished off, which would've taken no more than TWO SECONDS for Craig-Bond to state. Jerk.

I assumed because he was a member of Special Branch he was someone working for M, especially considering she knew who he was, and was then requesting Bond to turn himself in because of killing the man.

Either way, I couldn't really give a toss. The film annoys me.

[Kristatos]

I assumed because he was a member of Special Branch he was someone working for M

Huh? MI6 only operates outside the UK, while MI5 and Special Branch are engaged in a long and bitter turf war over responsibility for domestic terrorism. If you ever read a newspaper story about gross incompetence at MI5, chances are it comes from a journalist embedded with Special Branch, and vice versa.

[The Sweeney]

I assumed because he was a member of Special Branch he was someone working for M

Huh? MI6 only operates outside the UK, while MI5 and Special Branch are engaged in a long and bitter turf war over responsibility for domestic terrorism. If you ever read a newspaper story about gross incompetence at MI5, chances are it comes from a journalist embedded with Special Branch, and vice versa.

Either way, of all the glaring things wrong with QoS (and there are many), I don't think this particular moment is one of them. I didn't even give it a second thought until I read it on here.

[John P. Drake]

Skyfall A Review

Well, what can I say, what can I say?
For a start, well, I am not sure if I have ever seen a film, and, I don't mean a James Bond film, I mean, ANY Film, period that has gotten more things wrong than this one. It has so many things wrong with it, I do not know were to begin with it, I really don't. Well, I guess, if in doubt, one starts at, well, the beginning, the poster, and I can show you the first glaring mistake. "Skyfall". Seriously, what kind of a name is that? it sounds as if it should relate to an Apocalyptic event. Instead, it's just tacked onto some depression emo-ist Drama with a few guns added to exite some of the more psychopathic Call Of Duty:007 Edition players out there. Sky-Fail would have been a more appropriate title, because, well, it is a total failure. What is it the kids say on youtube? "Epic Fail"? Well, that's Skyfall for you, right there, there is virtually nothing correct with this movie. It fails at many things. It fails at being a Bond movie, as well, Bond isn't even in it, just someone called "James Bond", it fails at being a spy movie, heck it even fails at being an Action movie. In fact, it fails at being a movie. It was depressing. When I go the cinema, I want to enjoy myself. I don't want to be sent into a Prozac fueled downer that takes a run through of the ENTIRE "carry on" collection to lift. I really don't know were to begin.

Is it the non-sensicle plot? John Logan's godawful screenplay. Babs Broccoli's obsession for making the appeal to mentally derange goths? The woeful Musak from the same idiot who scored the equally awful Bourne films? the total Miscasting of Many roles? or them turning James Bond, into a VILLAIN! I honestly don't know what's the worst with this film. All I can say is, it's the worst film I have ever seen. And hey, I saw Operation Kid Bother!, so that is saying something. I think we shall begin, perhaps with the storyline. In fact, was there even a storyline? I didn't get the impression of there being one, what I got was "Bloodstone Mk II". Three very different totally incoherent storylines, sandwiched together in a way so haphazard and clumsy as to defy believe. I mean, first it stats off with a DIRECT rip off of the First Mission: Impossible. But then, they totally forget about that, the hard drive is never mentioned again. Only three totally unimportant members of the list are killed, it's SO Laughable. It seems Babs has been playing a bit too much Call of Duty as of later, as she seems to have this sime idea of "realizm". You make a load of non-sencical Micheal Bay-inspired man-child garbage. You paint it grey and brown and chuck some pathetic "overacting" and "emotions" into it, and bingo, instant Realizm sauce. Rubbish. No way would the entire MI6 NOC list be on one hard drive in a laptop. It would be on several disks, in several laptops in several countries, with none of the agents who posses the segment even knowing of the other agents existence. They, and the pieces, would never be in the same place outside of M's office. So to show it all on one disk, on one laptop is just insulting to the intelligence of anything higher than a cucumber. After the credits, another mistake taking Adele's gorgeous 1960 style theme tune, the ONE Bondian Element of the movie and adding it to a depressing, disgusting, satan supporting graphical artwork that looks like it belongs more in some cheap vampire flick than a spy movie. Proof indeed this film was aimed at Goths, mentally disturbed, highly deranged individuals obsessed with death, hell, depression, mass murder and suicide, people who should be locked up for their own safety as well as the safety of the publicity, and most certainly not allowed to influence the shape and form of the media. But I am digressing. The second half of the movie is a sick thug gangsta movie, just given some slightly more glamorous trappings. It also sees a character being totally re-written; Patrice was a thief yeah? So why has he now become an assassin? Make your minds up EON.

Then we come to the third act, ANOTHER new story; trying to protect M from Silva in some mind-numbingly inept hybrid of some "respek" driven revenge film and Home Alone... three films in one. None of them complete and none of them good. Also, just who was Patrice supposed to be killing? and what did it have to do with Silva or the overall half baked "story"? Story...hah! I've read better written storylines from a six year old, proving that Mendes and Logan just don't know what they are doing, just like Purvis & Wade (AKA "Pervert & Waste") before them. Also, that's a point, Bond is supposed to be an action movie, not some artsy drama flick about the meaning of cheese in a post-Soviet republic. So, why on earth hire a director without even the foggiest idea of how to direct an action movie who has only ever done artsy drama? It's beyond me! It's inevitable all you're going to get are some highly inept and laughable excuses at action, mixed in with boring, unwatchably overplayed "drama". Look, if I want drama, I'll go to stratford upon avon and watch shakespear at the RSC. I won't watch a "Bond" film.

Mendes didn't have the Foggiest idea what he was doing, same as Marc Forster before him. The editing was terrible, the scenes dragged, the film bogged down as soon as well, anything happened with long, dull, shots of cloud formations or heather, or a person blinking. It looked like an art project for university, not a professional summer blockbuster. Why oh why does Babs hire these rookies?! Sure, they may be established in arty drama circles, but they are Noobies at spy and action films. So why hire them for something that is supposed to be a spy action film? Especially when Brad Bird would have been cheaper and he certainly knows his way round a spy film! Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol being the best spy action film id seen since Tommorow Never Dies. Or rehired one of the older Bond directors
nothing speaks louder than experience, and you'd get a PROPER James Bond film, as they wouldn't tolerate Babs's emoism. Also, could you imagine the noise level of fans cheering if they saw "Directed by John Glenn" again? Everyone in the cinema would probably go deaf it would be that loud!! Then, we come to the casting
God. This is bad. BAD BAD BAD! First, we have Naomi Harris, she is awful. I'm sorry, but, she simply just cannot act. She was stiff, starchy, totally lacking in any charisma. She just wasn't convincing. And that angers me, the choose her simply because "someone" thought she looked good. Sorry, but, there are many more young black actresses out there who are both far prettier than Miss Harris, and CONSIDERABLY more talented. And...what on earth... She's playing MONEYPENNY!! NO NO NO NO!! Sorry to do a Thatcher impression, but no. This isn't on. I have nothing against "Eve" she was sweet natured, obedient, and feminine. Breath of fresh air against the usual feminazi thugettes we see these days like the intolerable Vesper Lynd, but, she was also incompetent! And that's what sticks in my gut! The orignal Moneypenny was a fromer member of the Women's Reserve Naval Service. The WRNS. She was competent, unflustered, unflappable. To portray a character with the name "Moneypenny" is an insult to the original charachter and everyone who has played her, to make matters worse, she is a wasted opportunity. With a more competent actress, a more competent skill level as a character and a different Last Name, she could have made a wonderful Replacement for Robinson as a positive role model for the black youth. Instead, I NEVER want to see her again, as I don't want to see the name Moneypenny continually tarnished, and I don't want to see that door-frame Miss Harris on a film again either. I've seen more lucid acting from Mr. Moore's left eyebrow.

Then there is Silva. Bardem is well cast in this role, as he is sinister, twisted, and grotesque, his mannerisms are creepy, but....his character....is rubbish!!! At best, Silva is a HENCHMAN! He is unambitious and only interested in revenge. He is not main villain material! He should have been the henchman of a crazed Chinese general who wanted to destroy the world in vengeance for "what they have done to china by polluting it with demonic capitalism, not been the actual main villain, but then I forget, this is "reailzm". It's for depressed loonies and boring small firm accountants with no imagination, it's for people who find reading a newspaper fun. It's not for healthy red blooded individuals who read comics and have active imaginations and WANT to see WMDs and mad Generals and threats to the world. Sorry for opening my mouth and daring to speak against the superiority of "Realizm". Sorry for being outdated and wanting a proper spy film instead of the front page of the guardian, sorry for having an imagination and actually being sane....

sarcasm to one side, seriously, if I wanted the kind of "evil businessmen" or "revenge terrorism" stories we have in "Bond" now, I would read the daily mail! (a nasty little rag of a newspaper) not watch a Bond film, when I watch a Bond film, I want WMDs and World Domination and Mad Generals (white cat optional), I want fun! Skyfall offered none of that. It didn't even offer victory. M dies. The whole film was.... pointless! So...why even bother watching it, I coulda just saved some money, and had more fun, by rewatching The Expendables on DVD instead.

Another case of "great actor, wrong role" is Albert Finney. Sure, he's a great actor. But,... he just cant do a good Scottish accent. He'd have been better of being shown as the prime minister really. But, one of the WORST casting roles in Ben Dishwater. Yes, you read that right. Ben Dishwater. As well, he just doesn't do well on camera. On the stage, my God he is Fantastic! But on camera, he is Dishwater, plain, brown, tepid and insipid. He ever totally over-acts or looks like a fish out of water and seems lost, like the mormon in the old joke... He's no good on screen. Also, having someone younger than Bond play Q.... that's not right, Q was always supposed to be an old Major as he was based on an Old Major. Major Geoffrey Boothroyd, one of the worlds first "gun experts", a Living breathing "imfdb" for the 1950s. And a jolly decent chap. to recast Q as young computer nerd... that's a Direct Insult to Major Boothroyd. And to give it to someone who is useless on film is an even bigger insult. It's an insult to Desmond Llewellyn, and that is Unpardonable. Yes, MI6 Does need a computer geek all information on the enemy, all the plans and counter plans, are stored on little electric chips now. Without a computer hacker these days, you are screwed. But to make Q the hacker? that's insulting, they should have got a young actress, someone who is genuinely rather socially inept and good with computers in real life. Someone like "Dustbin Babies" Lizzie Clark and brought back the charachter of R from Agent Under Fire or Q'ute from Gardner's Era. Then we come to my big issue, the personality they wrote this new Q is a PERSONAL Offence. He is a Stereotypical Autistic Person, being Played by a Normal Person Cripping Up. The modern answer to blacking up. Look at him, massive ego, totally socially inept, so easily distracted by logic and puzzles he can't see an obvious trap. That's a person with Aspergers Syndrome to A-T and, its played,... for laughs. That grinds my gears to a powder! I've got a friend with A-S! That angers me, then there is the fact that he gets it wrong! totally WRONG. He seems very competent at normal social interaction. But he fumbles every single line of computer speak were as a true A-S Individual could discuss Terra-flops and quazi-phasic metahydral cooling for hours on end. And yet... struggle to say hello. They are that person in the class, can Re-assemble a pile of bits into a fully functioning cray supercomptuer in 20 seconds flat, blindfolded, and yet be totally unable to tie there own shoelaces. So to portray them as socially competent, is well... both offensive and Typical of cripping up if you are going to have an autistic character. You write the role sensatively, not for laughs. And you either:

1. Get a normal actor who is willing to spend time with real aspies to learn there traits, as Dwight Shulz did before playing Reginald Barcly on Star-Trek: The Next Generation.

2. Or better. Get a real aspie to do it. You don't do it for laughs, and you don't give it to a normal person who is going to make a dogs ear out of it! So yeah, I take PERSONAL offence to the New Q, as for my friend... well, rage isn't the word. He personally wants to kick Mr Dishwater right between the legs, and HARD for that.

It's not all bad casting. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly cast as Gareth Mallory. A Tough, no Nonsense, highly patriotic and idomitable indicidual, half Patrcik Macnee's John Steed, Half Bernard Lee's Sir Miles Messervy. He certainly won't tolerate any emoism from Cr-egg. "Stop whining like a damned depressed schoolboy and do your job Bond! before I have you shot for ineptitude", I can hear him now. And well, I am actually going to miss Judi Dench. Yes, I feel she shoud have been recast with the totally unnecessary reboot that was "casino fail" as it was a total non sequitor for the same person who was a rookie M under the last Canonical Bond... To be a "relic from the Cold War" herself with this new, in my opinion, Non canonical Bond. I know they are different characters; Barbara Mawdsley and Olivia Mansfeild. But, they should have been played by different actresses, maybe Dame Maggie Smith would've been good, not the same actress. But, I am still going to miss those RANTS! That one in "Casino Fail" was perhaps the only good moment in the entire movie. So, I am going to miss those. But, worst of all. casting, and characterization is Bond.

first, casting Bond, as I remember him was tough, tall, handsome, suave, the English Gentleman. Craig isn't tough. He looks like he couldn't punch his way out of wet paper bag, he's short, he certainly isn't handsome (did the ugly tree fall on him?) and is NOT suave. He acts like a Street Thug! And is Not an English Gentleman! More a football playing yobbo, the kind who gets smashed out of his brain on larger, rapes a 15 year old girl, then says he shouldn't be punished cause she lead him on... the sort of person who should be shot. Then, well. He isn't a very good actor. At his best he is average, not much charisma, pretty limited facial expressions, voice is good
but... beige vanilla. The Toyota Avensis of the acting world but in skyfall he was Narcoleptic! he sounded BORED! When he gave THE line... he sounded like he was thinking "God. Get this crap over with already so i can go and do some vampire romance flick". Look Cr-egg. If you're bored with being Bond, give the role up! Leave! so we can get Clive Owen into the tux while he still has a couple of films in him while we wait for Micheal Fassbender to become the right age! Superb actors! very versatile, especially Owen who can both do an emotionally intense arty drama like Children of Men and then bring "ye olde Halfe Life era Firste Person Shooter" to life on the big screen in Shoot 'Em Up in the same year! That's versatility. The guy is a human vetrinox, they are also tough, handsome, tall, suave, heroic and gentleman, what Bond should be. Craig just isn't suited for the role. STATHAM is more suited and i am not taking the mickey, I am massive Statham fan) than Craig is for the role. At least Stath is Tough, Heroic, and a real life gentleman. So he is at least three things Bond should be. Craig is none of those things, so he just isn't suited for the role.

But worst of all, is what they have DONE with the character. When I was a kid, Bond was a Hero. He was up there at the top of my Heroic Characters list... He shared a page with the likes of Rambo, John Matrix, and John Maclean. Now, he is a VILLAIN! a pure BONAFIDE Villain! He now ranks even higher on my list of villainous characters than Both Richard Jones of Omni Consumer Products AND Jean "Heat Eater" Villain (Jean Claude Van Damme in Expendables 2). No longer is he a Hero to Admire but a villain to be gunned down. The way the character is portrayed is inexcusable, and it most certainly is NOT realistic and I will explain why.

First, Bond is what? 40 years old? and he is, apparantly, completely burned out? that is PATHETIC! Look at Victoria (Dame Helen Mirren having a great time growing old disgracefully) in RED. She's north of 60, is she burned out? No! She's still Kicking Arse and Taking names with Cate Archer-Esque effeciancy as if she was still a 20 odd year old superspy in the 1960s! So for Bond, a FICTIONAL, FANTASY character to be burned out at 40 is pathetic and, don't play the realism card. How old was Clive Owen when he did Killer Elite? 50? doing his own stunts! he KEPT UP! With Jason Statham, an Ex Olympic Athelite, and Statham was at Full Speed on that film! so if a man, in real Life, Aged 50 can keep up with a rather delightfully Mad ex olympic athelite, at full speed, there is no excuse, even with the realizm card
for Bond to be burned out at 40! Especially as this "new bond" has done NOTHING to burn him out! what's he taken on? Business Men SISSIES! Come on, look at Greene! A CHILD could have wiped the floor with Greene! no stress! So why is Bond Burned out when he has done Nothing to burn him out?!

now, we come to the VILLAIN. First odd. We now know why Bond doesn't get his rocks off anymore. He's gay. Bond, as hinted at in Casino Royale, and now Proven in Skyfail when he smiles when Silva pulls his penis... is homosexual, that's WRONG! Look, hate on me for that if you will. But please, I ask you to remember that I am a Roman Catholic and I must ask you to respect my religious beliefs. And we all know the way the Roman Catholic Church views homosexuality. Well. actually. Bond isn't homosexual, he is Bi-Sexual. This is shown by what he does with Severine. And this is why I know rank him as a PURE VILLAIN! Bond RAPES Her. Yes, you heard me right, he's not making Love to her in that shower. He is RAPING her. Since WHEN has a RAPIST, that sickest, most despicable, most twisted, most subhuman of criminal animals been a hero? I kid you not. Watch the scene in slow motion, watch the scene in slow motion, she struggles wit him in the shower
she tries to escape. Bond, grabs her by the throat swings her round and slowly SLAMS her into the shower wall with enough force to knock her out, then does the business. He then blackmails her, uses her, and then gets her killed. She looked to him as an escape, a way out. Instead, he abuses her in an even WORSE way than Silva, that was the "Jason Todd" moment for me. He's a villain! pure and simple! He should be gunned down! Then we come to what he is
A THUG! He gets a sick thrill from killing! He has no emotional control, he is violent and insubordinate. And he is willing to BETRAY the United Kingdom to pursue his own goals in Quantum of Solace, pursuing Greene. He pushed great Britain to the Brink of WAR with the United States and didn't give too hoots! Also, in Skyfall a prop shows his examination results. My friend is from a military family, he showed a screenshot of that prop to a friend of his fathers, that family friend, an EX army Medical officer reported that those results, in the army would have sent ALARM BELLS ringing in the MO's office. The soldier would have been clearly seen as an Emotionally unstable, undisciplined, PSYCHOPATH! Yes, that's right, Cr-eggs Bond is PSYCHOTIC!

In the real UK army, they would have removed him from duty, and bundled him into ENSA the entertainment corp, to keep him out of trouble while they talked with the Ministry to have him classed as "Section 8" and locked away at a mental institution after a Dishonorable Discharge from the army. He would never have made it to special forces in real life, let alone MI6, proving this idea of "him being realistic" is total utter garbage. Finally, we come to the worst thing: the Emotions. I HATE emotions being shown in movies by men, its not right, its unmanly! it's disgusting! it makes me nasueus! and it's Unneeded! An overblown emotional scene only proves the director doesn't know what he is doing, and the actor isn't skilled enough to be subtle! When a male character goes into a crying fit.....I feel sick, you want to make me feel sad. You need Pathos! This is done by great, powerful scripting! Quiet, subdued acting with no facial emotion, but a HAUNTED voice
and beautiful music! Just watch the aftermath of Apollo Creeds murder at the hands of Ivan Drago in Rocky IV. Or Tool (Mickey Rourke) remembering the suicide of a young woman in Bosnia that he could have prevented, in the expendables or the scene were Murphy unmasks in Robocop 1, those are, to me, the iconic pathos scenes. They punch my RIGHT in the heart every single time! They are powerful! moving! and haunting! and they are memorable! as they are such a profound change of pace! A powerful haunting SAD scene amongst, enjoyable over the top firefights and laugh a minute one liners, it stands out in a depressing movie like Skyfall. It's just the film being depressing again, it doesn't stand out. It just seems... pathetic! So, there it is. A long-winded review of Skyfall, a depressing, boring, Badly Made... mess. Which was....POINTLESS!!

[The Saint 007]

Nice in-depth review of Skyfall, JackJamesBond007!

[bjmdds]

Get this man a trophy at once To think this garbage film grossed twice QOS What are the minions thinking these days?

[John P. Drake]

err... fellas, since you were talking about QOS....I have a little question on that... How Did Slate die in "Quantum of Shakeycam"?

I know everyone here has serious issues with the Cr-egg era, and especially the second...er....mess... Qyantum of Shakeycam. I know I said skyfail had bad editing and direction, but, my God, I think QOS may actually be worse in those respects by using an extremely rapid "jump" cut style and mounting the camera on a Blender doubtless to cover the fact the film didn't have a story and to clone Bourne. Well, here's the thing, I cannot keep UP with the film. I mean, look, I've been playing "Proper" First Person Shooters since 1996, since good old Wolfenstein 3D, 20 years. And with those old games, you needed your brain on "Turbo" just for Mission 1. As a result, I have a sky high visual processing rate, all true gamers (ie, those who play Serious Sam and not that Modern Warfare/ MW clone, rubbish) have that. And well, I can't keep up with QOS's editing, so heaven knows how anyone else is supposed to. One of the most common questions I've seen asked, on Facebook, in "the old place", etc, is "how did Slate die?" Good point. Even I have no yet deciphered how Cr-egg kills Slate. We see Cr-egg dodge a badly rendered CGI knife (is it me or did they render it with GLDSRC?) shoves some badly rendered CGI scissors into Slate's knee and then we see Slate lying on the floor clutching a fatal gash in his neck... errr.... what just happened? So. for the help of well, pretty much the whole internet... just how DID Cr-egg kill Slate?... that is,,, if anyone can decipher the woeful editing...

[carl stromberg]

Great review JackJamesBond007!

JackJamesBond007
It was depressing. When I go the cinema, I want to enjoy myself. I don't want to be sent into a Prozac fueled downer that takes a run through of the ENTIRE "carry on" collection to lift.

The Craig fans will probably say that they only like the earlier black and white grittier Carry On films.

[John P. Drake]

Great review JackJamesBond007!

JackJamesBond007
It was depressing. When I go the cinema, I want to enjoy myself. I don't want to be sent into a Prozac fueled downer that takes a run through of the ENTIRE "carry on" collection to lift.

The Craig fans will probably say that they only like the earlier black and white grittier Carry On films.

Thank you, Carl Stromberg. Well, I'd say that Craig fans are not Bond fans. They never were. Just to follow emoism with pathetic teen drama thrown into the idiotic propaganda they think of it as "realism", they hold Craig's films as their kickstarters for the Bond franchise, bashing the Classic films because it wasn't "appealing" to them for not being "emotional" and "Shakespearean", they say Craig is "da bezt bond", because they love victims, not heroes. Realism? in real-life the Cr-egg bond won't last a day in the British Army, let alone becoming a Special Forces officer, that's what I call "Realism". I agree that Moonraker went too over the top, but Albert Broccoli still had Moore in the role of James Bond just with a slight in change in the formula, and For Your Eyes Only leaned to more "down the earth" material but still was Bondian, they fixed their mistake. But, after Dana Broccoli died, Babs activated her full feminism over the media and decided to "fire" Brosnan and bring someone else instead, someone she will be able to dominate. And that ended up with Danielle "crybaby" Cr-egg, a Jason Bourne wannabe, even Jon Favreau admitted that during an interview on Cowboys & Aliens film. As much as over the top fantasy Moonraker was, I still love it as Bond film, because we had a suave, sophisticated and manly character in Moore's Bond. And Hugo Drax was a great villain, someone who wanted world domination, not securing rights over a water resource in a third world country.

[The Saint 007]

Moonraker was the last Bond film to use John Barry's 007 Theme, something that I think should be brought back to the series.

[video][/video]

[John P. Drake]

Great post, Saint. One of the best boat chases ever.

[The Saint 007]

Great post, Saint. One of the best boat chases ever.

I enjoy most of the action scenes in Moonraker, especially the skydiving duel between Bond and Jaws. The score by John Barry is also one of his finest works for the series, in my opinion. There's great locations, witty one-liners, and decent villains. Regardless of what others may say, I really find Moonraker fun and entertaining. I also don't mind the sci-fi aspect of the film. It was only a matter of time before a Bond adventure would take place in outer space. They already hinted at it in You Only Live Twice. Plus, the space scene was only near the last part of the film. I don't understand why some say Moonraker copies Star Wars. Yes, it was influenced by the sci-fi craze at that time, but the film wasn't like Star Wars. It was Bond's take on outer space.

[John P. Drake]

Great post, Saint. One of the best boat chases ever.

I enjoy most of the action scenes in Moonraker, especially the skydiving duel between Bond and Jaws. The score by John Barry is also one of his finest works for the series, in my opinion. There's great locations, witty one-liners, and decent villains. Regardless of what others may say, I really find Moonraker fun and entertaining. I also don't mind the sci-fi aspect of the film. It was only a matter of time before a Bond adventure would take place in outer space. They already hinted at it in You Only Live Twice. Plus, the space scene was only near the last part of the film. I don't understand why some say Moonraker copies Star Wars. Yes, it was influenced by the sci-fi craze at that time, but the film wasn't like Star Wars. It was Bond's take on outer space.

Agreed. Well, many people hate Moonraker, but I don't. I love the film and the locations. And to be honest, the scene where Corrine got killed and Barry's music playing in the background. My God! That was the most haunting scene in the whole film franchise. Makes you hate Drax for it. A villain you love to hate. And make that two, Saint. I also loved Moonraker as it's one of my favourite, to be honest. I know many will disagree, but nothing will change my opinion towards it.

[bjmdds]

I love MR. It's a fun spaced out ride and that's what a Bond film should be..........not Bolivian water works going dry while looking at an aged side of uncooked beef portray Bond with lemon puckered lips