Skyfall Discussion (spoilers allowed)

[FormerBondFan]

I also think that A View To A Kill was the last old-school Bond film, before things started to change. I've always felt that Connery and Moore were actually much similar than most people think. Their Bond films pretty much shared the same formula, and had similar types villains/henchmen, secret lairs, gadgets, women who sometimes had some sort of naughty name, as well as lots of other little similarities. To me, the Connery and Moore eras had a very similar vibe that made them seem very much alike.

By the 1980s, the Moore era shifted to down-to-earth Cold War thrillers, but the humor side remains especially with O and AVTAK.

[The Sweeney]

I also think that A View To A Kill was the last old-school Bond film, before things started to change. I've always felt that Connery and Moore were actually much similar than most people think. Their Bond films pretty much shared the same formula, and had similar types villains/henchmen, secret lairs, gadgets, women who sometimes had some sort of naughty name, as well as lots of other little similarities. To me, the Connery and Moore eras had a very similar vibe that made them seem very much alike.

By the 1980s, the Moore era shifted to down-to-earth Cold War thrillers, but the humor side remains especially with O and AVTAK.

Octopussy was ruined by the comedy moments - telling snakes to `hiss off' and doing Tarzan yells while jumping on a rope......truly shocking!!

[FormerBondFan]

I also think that A View To A Kill was the last old-school Bond film, before things started to change. I've always felt that Connery and Moore were actually much similar than most people think. Their Bond films pretty much shared the same formula, and had similar types villains/henchmen, secret lairs, gadgets, women who sometimes had some sort of naughty name, as well as lots of other little similarities. To me, the Connery and Moore eras had a very similar vibe that made them seem very much alike.

By the 1980s, the Moore era shifted to down-to-earth Cold War thrillers, but the humor side remains especially with O and AVTAK.

Octopussy was ruined by the comedy moments - telling snakes to `hiss off' and doing Tarzan yells while jumping on a rope......truly shocking!!

That was weird.....very weird.

[Kristatos]

Octopussy seems like a prime candidate for a fan edit, like the one that was done for Moonraker. It only took about 10 minutes of cuts to transform MR into a reasonably straight Bond thriller, I suspect it would be even less for OP.

[The Saint 007]

I also think that A View To A Kill was the last old-school Bond film, before things started to change. I've always felt that Connery and Moore were actually much similar than most people think. Their Bond films pretty much shared the same formula, and had similar types villains/henchmen, secret lairs, gadgets, women who sometimes had some sort of naughty name, as well as lots of other little similarities. To me, the Connery and Moore eras had a very similar vibe that made them seem very much alike.

By the 1980s, the Moore era shifted to down-to-earth Cold War thrillers, but the humor side remains especially with O and AVTAK.

Octopussy was ruined by the comedy moments - telling snakes to `hiss off' and doing Tarzan yells while jumping on a rope......truly shocking!!

You forgot telling the tiger to "sit". Unlike the other Bonds, Roger has the unique ability of being able to talk to the animals, and therefore thinks he's Tarzan.

[The Sweeney]

Octopussy seems like a prime candidate for a fan edit, like the one that was done for Moonraker. It only took about 10 minutes of cuts to transform MR into a reasonably straight Bond thriller, I suspect it would be even less for OP.

Its true these moments are only brief in the Moore films, but nevertheless they take you out of the movie. They are moments when audiences would groan in disbelief, or shuffle with embarrassment in their seats. Totally unnecessary IMO, taking any sense of the thriller aspect out of the movie.

I still wonder what went through Cubby's mind when he OK'd these moments. Anti-Craig fans often slate his daughter for what she has supposedly done to the wreck the franchise, but I found these moments in Moore's films far more damaging.

I know that no one will agree with me here on this.

[The Saint 007]

The thing about the Craig Bond films is that they take themselves so seriously, that any outlandish moments seem even more laughable or awkward. With the Moore films, it was made clear that they weren't going to take things too seriously, and although some of the moments are silly, it doesn't seem as ridiculous as a Bond film that has silly moments but still tries to be super serious. I know that some people may not agree, but that's just how I personally feel. With Craig's Bonds, I find myself laughing at things that weren't intended to be funny.

For example, the scene in Quantum Of Solace where Bond and Dominic Greene were fighting makes me laugh. From the shaky filming, constantly going back and forth between various scenes going on at the same time, and Dominic Greene screaming like a banshee as he swipes at Bond with a fire axe (and even accidently chops at his own foot) all make this scene pretty ridiculous. And then there's the scene where Bond is handcuffed in an elevator, and still manages to take on three guys in a matter of seconds. Sorry, but as campy as Diamonds Are Forever is, the elevator fight between Bond and Peter Franks is FAR better.

[The Saint 007]

I'm going to add that Barbara constantly chasing after Oscars with all this artistic creativity, and the anything goes attitude when it comes to casting, is far worse than humorous shenanigans in my opinion. Sweeney, you said yourself that you would be furious if a black actor was cast to play Bond, and so would many others. It's not an issue of racism or discrimination of any kind, but there has to be a certain guideline when it comes to the casting of Bond, Q, Moneypenny, M, etc. Otherwise, it just gives the impression that pretty much anyone can play Bond or the other supporting characters. If you don't care for some of the humour in the Moore Bond films, then that's fine, I respect your opinion. But Barbara being overly artistic and politically correct I personally feel is far worse than a Tarzan yell, which only lasts for a few seconds.

[The Sweeney]

I'm going to add that Barbara constantly chasing after Oscars with all this artistic creativity, and the anything goes attitude when it comes to casting, is far worse than humorous shenanigans in my opinion. Sweeney, you said yourself that you would be furious if a black actor was cast to play Bond, and so would many others. It's not an issue of racism or discrimination of any kind, but there has to be a certain guideline when it comes to the casting of Bond, Q, Moneypenny, M, etc. Otherwise, it just gives the impression that pretty much anyone can play Bond or the other supporting characters. If you don't care for some of the humour in the Moore Bond films, then that's fine, I respect your opinion. But Barbara being overly artistic and politically correct I personally feel is far worse than a Tarzan yell, which only lasts for a few seconds.

If there is ever a black Bond, this will top any other faults made by Cubby or Babs. That will be the final nail in the coffin for the franchise.

[FormerBondFan]

I'm going to add that Barbara constantly chasing after Oscars with all this artistic creativity, and the anything goes attitude when it comes to casting, is far worse than humorous shenanigans in my opinion. Sweeney, you said yourself that you would be furious if a black actor was cast to play Bond, and so would many others. It's not an issue of racism or discrimination of any kind, but there has to be a certain guideline when it comes to the casting of Bond, Q, Moneypenny, M, etc. Otherwise, it just gives the impression that pretty much anyone can play Bond or the other supporting characters. If you don't care for some of the humour in the Moore Bond films, then that's fine, I respect your opinion. But Barbara being overly artistic and politically correct I personally feel is far worse than a Tarzan yell, which only lasts for a few seconds.

If there is ever a black Bond, this will top any other faults made by Cubby or Babs. That will be the final nail in the coffin for the franchise.

An Asian Bond would be worse, but that doesn't matter anymore for me, BJ, and all of the other rebels here.

[stockslivevan]

Frankly, I love Moonraker. Yes, I even laugh at the gondola sequence with the double taking pigeon. I think it's the use of "Tritsch-Tratsch-Polka" that sets the tone.

Therefore, I would not change a thing in that flick. Leave it as it is.

[The Saint 007]

Frankly, I love Moonraker. Yes, I even laugh at the gondola sequence with the double taking pigeon. I think it's the use of "Tritsch-Tratsch-Polka" that sets the tone.

Therefore, I would not change a thing in that flick. Leave it as it is.

Totally agreed! Moonraker is just great escapist fun. Roger Moore handles the humorous situations in such a calm and cool way, that he makes it all look almost normal.

[bjmdds]

What happened to the NOC list Silva had?

[gklein]

I thought my detailed criticism of "Skyfall" might be appreciated on this site.

This is an updated, very detailed and, I promise, intelligent review.

I'm a nearly 50 year-old, life-long Bond fan. This is my first Bond movie review. IT WILL BE FULL OF SPOILERS. Where do I start? Best Bond ever? I really don't know what movie everyone else was watching. I watched the most boring Bond movie ever. Also, never mind all the lose ends from the previous two movies. That's all forgotten as Bond goes from being a rookie (though, at times, an amazingly skilled rookie) to being all washed-up.

Bond movies have committed a lot of sins over the years - not the least of which is the producers' flat out refusal to EVER deliver a Bond movie that's not full of major plot faults. The one unforgivable sin though is to deliver a Bond movie that is weak on stunts and truly Bondian action. To say that “Skyfall” is weak in this regard is an understatement. Outside of the pre-credit sequence, there is NO truly Bondian action or stunts in the entire lengthy movie (not that I mind a long Bond movies). Even really bad Bond movies, like “Die Another Day”, at least entertain if you can ignore the stupid plot and its faults. “Skyfall” consistently bores -- something a Bond movie should NEVER do.

There's a reason that the ideal template for a Bond movie should be a modern mix of “From Russia With Love” and “Goldfinger” – and NOT “On Her Majesty's Secret Service”. (OHMSS) The best Bond movies are somewhat serious but always fun (though they should never be silly or attempt to be comedies). Producers, you got to 50 years by making fun films. OHMSS was great as a one-off stand-alone. You'd have never reached 50 making something so heavy over and over. Even OHMSS had plot faults.

As for the plot of “Skyfall”, there's not a single scene that makes any sense whatsoever from a plot-perspective. John Logan, who wrote the brilliant Hugo, must have simply been brought in to add wit to the existing script -- not worrying about the, apparently, necessary plot faults. Yes, I can only think the produces believe a Bond movie MUST have plot faults as they refuse to make the movies any other way. With so little action, all these major plot faults cannot be ignored. More on that in a moment. First, what's right about the movie?

Top notch acting all around. Javier Bardem is magnificent. You find yourself wishing for more screen time with him. He completely upstages Craig. His villain is part Hannibal, part Joker, part Max Zorin -- at least original in the compilation.

Daniel Craig is a great actor. However... Half the fun of a Bond movie used to be simply watching Bond be Bond. Unfortunately, this is not so with Craig's emo Bond. In one scene with Q, when Bond is asked what he sees in an artistic picture, the uncultured, emo Craig-Bond offers in put-out fashion "a bloody big ship". The more fun Bonds of the past would have come back with something completely unexpected that showed wit AND greater observation skills - perhaps noting the picture was a fake because of some detail. And he would have done it with a bit of wink. Similarly, during the word association game, Bond d**n near howls and hisses. Craig would make a better villain than a Bond.

There's a scene in “Casino Royale” where Craig's Bond commandeers a tractor and does nothing more inventive with it than crashing it through a wall. There's another scene where he crashes his own body through a wall like Jaws – the same wall the villain had himself negotiated with Bondian panache. Enough said?

Q then gives Bond a signature gun which we've already seen used more effectively in “License to Kill” than the use it gets here. Then Q quips "were you expecting an exploding pen"? Well, yes, frankly – at the very least. I like the idea of a young computer expert assisting Bond (even if all the "computer work" by Q in this movie was ridiculous and unbelievable) but shouldn't someone older, with more experience, be creating gadgets? Casting John Cleese as Q was genius back in the Brosnan days. I wish Cleese were brought back. Also, it used to be that Q was the only one allowed to out-quip Bond. This is no longer the case. I'm not sure I like this change.

The pre-credits action is a bit routine but made fresh by some added dramatic elements. Then, thank goodness, there's the cuff-link and jacket adjustment – finally a truly Bondian moment in a Craig Bond (and done very well by Craig). Can we please have the gun-barrel back to the beginning of the movies now?

I've often thought that the pre-credit sequence should not be the best set-piece of a Bond movie. There should be about five set-pieces (interspersed with smaller action bits) and the pre-credit piece should be the third best -- with a better one mid-movie and the best one at the finale. This way the movie is always building. (The same should be true of the drama, fun and twist/surprise reveals.) “For Your Eyes Only” is a great example of a Bond movie with a large number of set-pieces held together by an engaging, down-to-earth, realistic story. (Though it's not a perfect movie mainly because Moore is miscast as Bond in this reboot. Bond is played very differently than the Bond we'd already gotten from Moore. This should have been the first Bond movie starring Dalton. The movie also had some silly moments.)

Many Bond movies make the mistake of never topping the pre-credit action. Worse, more still have very weak finales. Well, in “Skyfall”, the pre-credit set-piece is all we get. Period.

The title song is good and the the credits animation is great. I really enjoy the work of Daniel Kleinman. His Bond work is more original and less pornographic than the credit sequences of previous Bonds. His work here is not quite as inspired or original as his work on “Casino Royale” but still good.

The score is slightly weak with only passing notes of the Bond theme. The Bond theme never really takes-off because there are simply no action scenes with the required panache to place it. Mendes was responsible for insisting on his sound man and should take blame for the slightly weak score. Also, apparently Mendes lied when he said that he did NOT ask for actions scenes to be deleted from the script (to make more room for drama) when he was hired-on. This is easily one of the most action-weak Bond movies ever.

The cinematography is great. Mendes gets credit here for insisting on his cinematographer.

There's a lot of wit written into the script despite its plot faults (everywhere). Let's get to those plot faults...

First, why does Bond become addicted to alcohol and pills? It's never explained. Is it simply because he was accidentally shot? One minute, he's on top of his game fighting on top of a train. The next, he's all washed-up but we don't know why. Bond can't take a bullet?

MI6 is attacked with explosives (which we've already seen in the vastly more entertaining “The World Is Not Enough”). How did Silva get the explosives in there? Then, once NATO agents start getting exposed, shouldn't Felix Leiter step-in? Where's the CIA? Oh yes, the Americans already covered this ground years earlier in a “Mission Impossible” movie.

Bond breaks into M's home (he also did this in “Casino Royale” -- a movie in which he also remotely hacked her computer). How does this behavior not get him court-martial-ed? It's an obvious attempt by the producers to make Bond more Bourne-like but Bond is not Bourne. He works FOR queen and country not AGAINST them -- or, at least, he shouldn't work against them.

After living with it for three months, Bond gets around to extracting shrapnel from a bullet wound in his chest so that he can identify the shooter - the same shooter that killed MI6 agents at the beginning of the movie with the same gun. Apparently MI6 never thought to extract those bullet remains three months earlier as any police investigation would have done. Thank goodness for Bond's superior intelligence.

Shanghai. Three bad guys have someone in a room that they want to kill. Do they simply kill him? No. They fly in a hit man to shoot him from a neighboring skyscraper. Bond coldly watches the killing without interfering. Then he kills the hit man - the same man he was unable to kill on top of the train. Now that Bond is all washed-up and unable to fight, he is suddenly able kill him quite readily. I did enjoy the silhouetted fight.

Macao. The same three bad guys who couldn't kill a man that they had isolated in a room (and had to hire someone to kill him), decide to kill Bond in a crowded casino. They're not worried about anyone seeing. They don't wait to try to kill him outside. They attack him in the casino - but without simply pulling a gun on him. They first allow Severine (another good performance) to talk to him but don't bother to find our what she learned before trying to kill him. I did enjoy the Bondian Komodo dragons.

I also enjoyed the creative “shaken-not-stirred” take. The “Bond, James Bond” bit was tired. While this line should be in every Bond movie, the set-up and delivery has only been done really well in five Bond movies – Connery's in “Dr. No”, Moore's in “Live And Let Die”, Dalton's in “The Living Daylights”, Brosnan's in “The World Is Not Enough”, and Craig's in “Casino Royale”.

Next we meet Silva on his island lair. It's a great scene with a great performance by Bardem. The trouble is, it makes no sense. First of all, we are to believe that this man, formerly of MI6, is motivated by revenge and wants to kill M - maybe attacking MI6 and NATO first for greater revenge (even though this represents the same kind of betrayal to his compatriots that he himself has suffered).

We don't know when or how he got released from his Chinese captors (whose hands M had betrayed him into) but we do know it was many years ago. Does this great (we learn) former agent immediately track down M to seek his revenge upon gaining his freedom – the reason, he says, the he lives? No. He somehow becomes an amazing computer expert (better than the genius young Q who is outsmarted by Silva). Silva becomes a sort of computer-espionage expert for hire and builds a private army. Apparently, this is all to pass the time while he continues to think, for years, about killing M -- not worrying that the "little old lady" might well die of natural causes or retire before he gets to her and her MI6.

He and Bond are the two lone survivors that M has created - as Silva explains to Bond. Really? Bond is all that's left of the 00s or MI6? When did that happen? Silva acts as though he knew, for years, that M would send Bond for him and that he has some connection to Bond. Bond is part of his plan – but there is no connection to Bond as there is to M.

Then Silva kills Severine (a waste of on screen talent and an interesting character). Bond, who had promised to rescue her, doesn't give a d**n - even though he's a more emotionally vulnerable Bond when it comes to his own hurts. This is now the third time in as many mission movies that Craig's Bond has directly caused the death of an innocent and not cared.

Then Bond, who couldn't hit a stationary target with his gun a few days earlier, expertly outguns five or six moving gunmen at once – killing each of them with only one shot to each. Silva is then taken into custody - all part of Silva's plan. Apparently, it was also part of his plan to blow the cover on his island lair, lose some men, and lose his access to the vast computer network that he had spent years building and was the source of his livelihood and power. This must be why Silva, the former great agent, never bothered to frisk Bond which would have led him to discover the not-so-tiny radio that Bond had expertly hidden on himself by dropping it into his pocket.

Also, apparently, after Silva's attack on MI6, he knew MI6 would move its headquarters to an underground location giving him access to London's subway system. He also knew that MI6 would devise a glass prison just for him and connect its door to their main computer network so that he could escape and meet some of his men at a pre-arranged time.

Why did Silva want access to the subway system? It's all about Bond.

You see, in his master plan, years in the making, he knew that if he escaped into the subway system that Bond would pursue him there and catch up with him as he was making his way up a ladder. He could then blow a hole in the subway corridor (with explosives that he must have planted years earlier) that would send an entire subway train careening toward Bond (a train that, at rush hour, is completely empty). This is much better than having one of his men kill Bond. You see, it makes perfect sense. This train scene is quite bombastic and totally lacking in Bondian flair.

In all of this, the producers were obviously trying to take a chapter from the “The Dark Night”. The only thing they got right was the brilliant portrayal of Silva by Bardem. The plot of “Skyfall” shows none of the intelligence of the “The Dark Knight”. (I'm not talking about the “Dark Knight Rises” -- which was heavy and lumbering and not nearly as good or fun as “The Dark Knight”.)

M explains to Bond that she traded Silva to the Chinese many years ago because he was too gun-ho in his job and exceeded his mandate. Sound like Bond? You'd think at this point Bond might be concerned that the same could happen to him. After all, the Craig Bond fails every mission. I knew governments traded prisoners for other prisoners but it's quite unsettling to think that they trade their own agents. At this point, I began wishing Silva success.

If there's one scene that encapsulates this entire movie, it's the scene where M is reciting pretentious poetry interspersed with action scenes involving Bond. The action scenes are all boring but that doesn't matter. In Mendes hands, it's the pretensions that are important. The action scenes are only there to add symbolic weight to the words of the poem – or to be strung together pieces of art parading as a Bond movie.

Silva finally attempts to kill M and fails. Well, he tried to kill her by storming a congressional over-sight hearing -- not exactly the most opportune moment.. Bond is shown to be an expert gunmen again. Bond then "kidnaps" M and takes her to his childhood home - believing he and (ultimately) his deceased parent's old groundskeeper (still stalking around their isolated and abandoned mansion home in suite and tie) can protect M better than all of MI6.

The old Aston Martin is brought out. Why does this modern Bond have a 1960s model Aston Martin that has been heavily modified by Q branch? It's not explained. It would have been fun if it had been shown how Bond acquired this car. Perhaps it belonged to some legendary double oh of the 1960s -- a great wink to the audience. Anyway, didn't we learn how Bond acquired his taste for Aston Martins back in “Casino Royale”? How does this fit in? As in “Casino Royale”, this Aston Martin is underutilized. When the car is destroyed, Bond shows his first real emotion in the entire movie. If only he cared as much when Severine died (or when M dies later).

Silva shows up with his men. Being now denied his island lair with its computer network and presumably stripped of all personal belongings when he was taken into MI6 custody, how was Silva able to contact his men or follow the computer-created “bread crumbs” laid-out for him by Q? Without access to bank accounts, how is he able to pay his men? Why are they still working for him?

Bond fails in protecting M and Silva kills her. Unlike with Vesper, Bond gets over the death of his “mom” and his failure to protect her in no time. Well, I guess she was a “bitch” before she died – though, to be fair, Bond wasn't the best son a mom could have. Wait a minute, Vesper was also a “bitch” – but AFTER she died. Let's see... Bond only has relationships with “bitches”. All other women are to be used. Got it. Wait, is Moneypenny a “bitch” or will he use her?

This is now Bond's third failure in as many mission movies. In “Casino Royale”, he failed to deliver Le Chiffre alive (and was subsequently shown to be cavalier and insubordinate about it in the next movie). Having slightly redeemed himself by capturing Mr. White, he then loses him in “Quantum of Solace” and never recovers him. (By the way, why couldn't Le Chiffre simply have been kidnapped by MI6 at the beginning of “Casino Royale” the way Mr. White was at the end of the movie?) Bond then deliberately failed in delivering anyone else alive during this move -- including Dominic Greene, who could have been used to gain intelligence on the mysterious Quantum organization. In fact, Bond deliberately sent Greene to a slow sadistic death (the kind of evil the villain would normally dish-out). Bond did this from personal motivations and then lied to his superior about it.

It's interesting that after Bond fails to recover the stolen hard drive in the beginning of the movie and then fails all of his tests, M rewards him by lying about his failed test results and sending him out on a mission with such personal stakes for herself and MI6 and NATO - especially given this Bond's track record of failure and insubordination. It's even more interesting that after Bond kidnaps M and gets her killed -- d**n near treasonous action -- the new M rewards Bond with another mission.

I did like the reveal of the new Moneypenny – which suggests she may be a bit more than the traditional secretary of previous Bonds. Hooray for that. Other than that...

The finale is completely boring -- especially the panache-lacking action. In fact, there hasn't been a good finale in a Bond movie since “License to Kill” – a movie that did a great job of using great action and stunts to actually move the serious story along. The action was well integrated into the story. By panache-laden Bondian action I mean things also like the tank chase in “Golden Eye” or the boat chase in “The World Is Not Enough” – though they were both tacked-in and not well integrated.

And all the stuff about Bond's childhood is out-of-place. He's not Batman. He's not supposed to have two identities like most super heroes. He's meant to be a continuous cipher -- always on the edge of death so always enjoying life. Where can you go after blowing his cover like this? Will he wear a mask and cape in the next movie? We even learn, not only of his Scott heritage but also of his Christian heritage. This is a mistake to impart on a man of the world.

(Well, to be fair, Bond had already blown his own cover in “Casino Royale” when he stormed an embassy and had his picture shown and identity revealed in the newspapers. I guess his real career in espionage ended as soon as it began. I wonder why Dominic Greene didn't know who he was?)

I'm all for putting intelligence, grittier action, good acting, artistic devices, beautiful cinematography, and more realistic and thrilling stories into Bond pictures but for goodness sake, don't sacrifice the panache, stunts and action - the most critical elements of Bond. This, apparently, has been given over to the “Mission Impossible” movies - the last of which contained much better action, stunts, gadgets, originality (even as they copied and out-Bonded Bond) and FUN than all of the Craig-Bonds put together. Bond, you are no longer the leader.

I even like the main characters to have back story -- just not for Bond. He is supposed to be an international man of MYSTERY.

And, producers, please, I know it's Bond, but it's really okay to have a story without plot faults. If you can't find a writer who can deliver this, I'll review the scripts for free and point them out. It's not rocket surgery. Also, try taking just a littler more inspiration from the highly fun and inventive “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise and just a little less from the self-absorbed Bourne and Batman franchises (which are not the game-changers you and Mendes believe them to be). Maybe even give us a Bond movie involving modern sea-based piracy. Sure, give us another Craig Bond (maybe two) to wrap-up the Quantum stuff, then give us a reboot back to a fun Bond with a new actor. Actually, Craig looks old enough to retire the role already.

Finally, my take on the Craig Bonds in general... I've been on the fence but now three movies in, I have to say, Craig is not my Bond. He's a great actor and I like much of his work but he's miscast. Bond can be a cold killer and still be fun and have panache. If people truly want the Fleming Bond then, Timothy Dalton, the most underrated Bond, fit the bill better. Unlike Craig's Bond, his Bond showed remorse at killing -- the way Fleming wrote him. His Bond was also dashing and handsome while exuding the same kind of danger and physical ability that Craig's Bond pulls off. Also, while Craig now claims to have been a Bond fan since way back, it was obvious from the “Casino Royale” press conference that he had very little knowledge of Bond. He became Bond almost entirely at the personal preference of one woman – Barbara Broccoli (who ignored everyone else' advice because she googles over Craig as a sex oject).

I've finally given-up on Bond but may write a review of the similarly over-rated “Casino Royale” (which was still better than “Skyfall”) - whose script also has many plot faults (though not nearly as many as or as serious as those of “Skyfall”). The slightly under-rated “Quantum of Solace” – though I agree with most of the criticism it received -- was more entertaining than “Skyfall” with not nearly the number of plot faults (though there were some). It had action even it wasn't Bondian action. It simply needed to be fleshed out with more story and character development between the action scenes and, like “Skyfall” and “Casino Royale”, needed more Bondian panache.

If “Skyfall” is the new direction of Bond – all the plot faults we've come to expect of the franchise but none of the action, thrills, stunts, panache and fun – the series will never make it close to another 50 years.

[FormerBondFan]

Totally agreed! Moonraker is just great escapist fun. Roger Moore handles the humorous situations in such a calm and cool way, that he makes it all look almost normal.

The humor in O is rather silly.

[stockslivevan]

What happened to the NOC list Silva had?

They recovered it when they captured Silva.

[bjmdds]

When they logged into his computer it overtook the MI6 computer and nothing was found except Q cursing, S--T, S--T,S--T, S--T, 4 times. What was the point of debasing the language in a Bond film to vulgarity by the way? F--K by Dench, S--T by Q, why?

[Goldeneye]

Welcome gklein!

[The Saint 007]

Welcome to the forum gklein!

Excellent review of Skyfall, by the way. I especially agree with your thoughts on Craig as Bond, he is certainly a miscast. Although Dalton only did two Bond films, I still think he's better at the more serious/Fleming portrayal of Bond. I honestly don't know why Barbara is so crazy about Craig, and continuously insists that he should stay in the role for the next umpteen years.

[The Saint 007]

Totally agreed! Moonraker is just great escapist fun. Roger Moore handles the humorous situations in such a calm and cool way, that he makes it all look almost normal.

The humor in O is rather silly.

I personally don't find the humour in Octopussy to be any more sillier than Moonraker. And as Kristatos mentioned, a little editing can easily make it a more reasonably straight Bond thriller.

Other than the jungle scene with the Tarzan yell, I'm not too sure as to what other humorous moments you found to be more silly than the ones in Moonraker. But again, if you find some of Moore's shenanigans to be rather bizarre, then that's fine, I can't argue with your opinion. Even though I don't mind Moore's campy humour, I can still understand why some people may not be into it.