Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SAVEWASH:
I just saw "Skyfall" this past week with my sister and I REALLY liked it! Great Bond flick! It had several nods to the past, "Goldfinger" especially (they had a James Bond marathon on SyFy this past week, too). The two reviews above say it better than I could.

I've watched every Bond movie ever made (more than once), but I still have a question for those of you who know more about Bond than I do.

Select to view spoiler:

---

I was surprised that "James Bond" is his real name. I'd always assumed it was his "spy" name but that clearly isn't the case, at least as revealed in this movie. Is that true in the books?

---

Thanks! If you're a Bond fan, I strongly recommend "Skyfall"!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I always liked the "Bond as codename" fan-theory, especially since it let me count "The Rock" as a Bond film... But I felt that Casino Royale had already dispelled that one, as it depicted him as "James Bond" before earning his 00 rating.

Now, when they enevitably do re-cast the role again, I think it might be cool to work that into the new continuity - with Bond getting killed off somehow, and a new spy assuming his identity for the good of Queen and Country and all...




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Mal4prez,

I just wanted to drop you a note about your review. I liked it, I liked it a lot. Gotta admit that I agreed with many of your observations, but I have to go do some family stuff right now, I will have more to say at a later date.

Thanks for posting dude.

SGG

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Shoot, another one I just thought of. Bond meets the gorgeous woman on her boat, and he just strips down and jumps in the shower with her. Sorry, but his last encounter with her showed that she's a woman in terror of her "bosses". This is a woman who's been taken advantage of for her looks. That was pretty damned presumptuous of him to just come onto her like that. Clearly, she is living a life where she is not allowed to say no.

My radar went off: this is movie written by men, as a fantasy for men, that every woman wants you and you can just jump in the shower with the frightening victimized woman because hey - she wants you, and if she has complications that's not your problem.

I was not a fan of that scene.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
SPOILER ALERT: don't read this if you haven't seen the movie! (I don't know, I just find it annoying to use spoiler tags on a longish post...)

Re the bullet wound: this is my thought process the first time I saw the movie. He gets hit by a ricochet just before he jumps from the bulldozer thing to the train car (awesome shot BTW!) He's shot straight through the shoulder, as there's blood on the back of his jacket. So: On no! - he's fighting on the top of the train, already wounded!

Then Eve shoots and he falls. OK, I know he's not going to die, but in my suspended-disbelief brain there is that thought: Oh no again! Where'd she hit him, did she kill him? Then we're in the intro with all the animation of the shoulder wound. I'm thinking: wait wasn't he already hit there? So where'd she hit him?

Yeah, too many words about something so small. It's just a detail I'd have changed if I was making the movie. Except that I'd have no idea how to make a movie, especially one this good LOL!

Re the sex scene, and this is bigger deal: This is not just the usual Bond womanizing, where he has great sex that obviously the woman likes, though there is no emotional bond in it. (I really tried to find another word to avoid the pun.) There's a power dynamic here.

The one time they talked, I didn't see a sexual connection or desire so much as fear and a need for help. When he shows up naked right next to her, what she could be thinking is: if I say no, he won't help me. Or if I say no and he doesn't stop, who's going to stop him? After all, she has no idea who this guy is, except that he's very good at killing people. What are her choices at that point, when this powerful guy is right beside her, naked? At the very least, it's damned presumptuous of him.

I think it's poor writing. It's out of character. Bond will and has used sex to do his job, but never (that I recall) with this kind of power dynamic. All they needed was some moment that suggests he asks, and she accepts. If she'd seen him fully clothed and given him a come hither look before he stripped - that's ok. That's within the Bond character as I understand it.

What really bothers me is that I think the writers didn't consider this to be out of character because they didn't consider the power dynamic or even think about her point of view. To me, it's yet another little indicator of how our society does not really understand what sexual abuse is.

Yes, I've been spending a lot of time considering Steubenville.

On the lighter side: I need to review my Bond history! I didn't know Moneypenny was a romance. I can totally see it though, her and Bond did have chemistry in spades.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
While I have seen a lot of the Bond films I wouldn't call myself a fan of them. They are primarily action films and I am not a fan of pure action films. Some have had a decent story, but mostly they are just extended stunt scenes. I was bored with Casino Royale and never bothered with Quantum of Solace. Everyone has been raving about Skyfall, but I'm afraid I have to take a contrarian view of this one too.

Yes, it has great production values, great cinematography, and for the most part it is well acted. But well written? Nope.

In the scene of the inquiry into M's conduct and handling of the breach of security, they were implying that MI-6 might have outlived its usefulness. I was thinking the same could be said about Bond films.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?

The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.

Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?

The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.

Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?

The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.

Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.

---

Have you read John Le Carre? Not being a spy, I can't say for sure, but his books feel quite "real" to me. Being a spy seems like it'd be more about reading people and manipulating them than having pretty guns and hot cars and sexpot women. Le Carre shows the real cost of this kind of manipulation.

The human side is part of what I liked about the Jason Bourne character, too, though the movies didn't do it justice. In the books Bourne is a chameleon. He reads people and situations and creates a character for himself that gets the job done. Damon would have been awesome at that, but that's not how the character was written in the movies. I actually the new Bourne movie did a better job showing this side of a spy, but it might just be my little crush on Jeremy Renner talking.

Yeah, Bond is completely not real. I don't think it really tries to be, no matter that it's gotten more gritty in the new movies. I actually enjoy that it fully throws itself into the fantasy. You're right, though, that such things have to be well done. Too many inconsistencies and the movie, no matter how pretty, is no longer fun.

SGG: looking forward to your report!

---