›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…593594596598599…707

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    jobo wrote: »
    I'd say TLD and LTK were both great.

    +1.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited September 2020 Posts: 45,489

    Herr_Stockmann wrote: »
    WillyGalore_Redux wrote: »
    It was shoehorned in as a way of linking it to the title of the film
    This is probably one of my biggest issues with this film: not only does it use a very beautiful title from Fleming's corpus without adapting anything from the as beautiful short story, but it also links it to the antagonists... Without doing anything neither.

    It is all the more curious that the Fleming's title came very late in the production process and the first drafts were titled "Sleep of the Dead". I wonder if the organization had another name in these early versions.

    Maybe they were called Sleep.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,114
    After rewatching CR yesterday, I wih they'd kept Tobias Menzies as M's assistant instead of introducing Rory Kinnear.

    Do we know why he didn't return?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    After rewatching CR yesterday, I wih they'd kept Tobias Menzies as M's assistant instead of introducing Rory Kinnear.

    Do we know why he didn't return?

    I agree. His slight, but not outright antagonistic relationship with Bond was interesting. Plus he's a far better actor than the expressionless one.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    I simply feel that a movie that is a direct sequel (literally, immediate) has a bit more responsibility to do something thematically important (emotionally, narratively, for the character) with the material it is a sequel to. And QoS, whatever you think of the film, doesn't, I don't think. Regardless of varying opinions as to whether it is a "good" or "bad" film.

    I know for me, leaving the theater, I felt tremendously let down that a movie that was ostensibly a continuation of the Vesper story offered little in the way of emotional/mental reckoning for Bond.

    Sure, we see him getting wasted on the plane. We get a few lines plopped in there. We get the Yusef confrontation at the end. But..? Okay? I don't know. I still feel that way about the movie, even though its elemental feel has grown on me over the years as something of the black sheep of Bond films.
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    edited September 2020 Posts: 32
    My controversial opinion is that the Pierce Brosnan films are way too over the top violent. But I also have a confession. Out of the four Brosnans I do hold a soft spot towards Tomorrow Never Dies, even though I don't like the violence.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that the Pierce Brosnan films are way too over the top violent. But I also have a confession. Out of the four Brosnans I do hold a soft spot towards Tomorrow Never Dies, even though I don't like the violence.

    What do you think of the Craig films, then? Particularly the first two? Brosnan's films tend to have a high death count, by and large (more in keeping with action films of the 80s in that regard) but I feel that Craig's films are considerably more violent in a visceral sense.
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    Posts: 32
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that the Pierce Brosnan films are way too over the top violent. But I also have a confession. Out of the four Brosnans I do hold a soft spot towards Tomorrow Never Dies, even though I don't like the violence.

    What do you think of the Craig films, then? Particularly the first two? Brosnan's films tend to have a high death count, by and large (more in keeping with action films of the 80s in that regard) but I feel that Craig's films are considerably more violent in a visceral sense.

    Strange thing is I have no issues with Craig's violence. I think the thing about the Brosnans is all the emphasis upon shooting, often as I recall with machine-gun like effects. There's just something about it. Not that there's any blood spurting from the victims. It's just my personal feelings.

    I enjoy the Craig reboot very much.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    Brosnan's era was the loudest in Bond history. He jumped from more explosions than John McLane and shot almost as much machine gun bullets as Rambo. Some spy.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    I do love a good dose of hyperbole.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    One thing that I do find troubling in GE is Bond’s use of license to kill over Russian soldier during the St. Petersburg firefight. They weren’t villainous Janus thugs, but likely good Russian soldiers that Orumov was using to his own ends. They didn’t know any better, they were following orders of a general who they didn’t know was a traitor. Of course, Bond actually has no choice but to defend himself. Thats all understandable. But it is peculiar that the film never stops to acknowledge the dynamic. There’s no moment of Bond feeling grim over having to do what he did in order to survive. It gives that whole sequence a callous vibe, especially once the tank comes into play and is done for laugh gags.

    It doesn’t hurt the film for me, but it is one of those little bothersome qualities. At least in OP it comes off more pointed with moments like Bond having no choice but to shoot a soldier who looks fairly young. Bond doesn’t look pleased during any of that. Of course moments later it’s kind of sidelined with Bond wearing a gorilla suit.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,114
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One thing that I do find troubling in GE is Bond’s use of license to kill over Russian soldier during the St. Petersburg firefight. They weren’t villainous Janus thugs, but likely good Russian soldiers that Orumov was using to his own ends. They didn’t know any better, they were following orders of a general who they didn’t know was a traitor. Of course, Bond actually has no choice but to defend himself. Thats all understandable. But it is peculiar that the film never stops to acknowledge the dynamic. There’s no moment of Bond feeling grim over having to do what he did in order to survive. It gives that whole sequence a callous vibe, especially once the tank comes into play and is done for laugh gags.

    It doesn’t hurt the film for me, but it is one of those little bothersome qualities. At least in OP it comes off more pointed with moments like Bond having no choice but to shoot a soldier who looks fairly young. Bond doesn’t look pleased during any of that. Of course moments later it’s kind of sidelined with Bond wearing a gorilla suit.

    All fair points. I love both GE and OP, but those moments always bothered me too. Especially the GE one. I always find myself thinking: "Hang on, isn't the Cold War supposed to be over?"
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that the Pierce Brosnan films are way too over the top violent. But I also have a confession. Out of the four Brosnans I do hold a soft spot towards Tomorrow Never Dies, even though I don't like the violence.

    What do you think of the Craig films, then? Particularly the first two? Brosnan's films tend to have a high death count, by and large (more in keeping with action films of the 80s in that regard) but I feel that Craig's films are considerably more violent in a visceral sense.

    Strange thing is I have no issues with Craig's violence. I think the thing about the Brosnans is all the emphasis upon shooting, often as I recall with machine-gun like effects. There's just something about it. Not that there's any blood spurting from the victims. It's just my personal feelings.

    I enjoy the Craig reboot very much.

    Brosnan no doubt used the machine gun more than any other Bond. I too take issue with that. It is the kind of thing that belongs in a Rambo film, but feels very out of place in Bond.
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    edited September 2020 Posts: 32
    jobo wrote: »
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that the Pierce Brosnan films are way too over the top violent. But I also have a confession. Out of the four Brosnans I do hold a soft spot towards Tomorrow Never Dies, even though I don't like the violence.

    What do you think of the Craig films, then? Particularly the first two? Brosnan's films tend to have a high death count, by and large (more in keeping with action films of the 80s in that regard) but I feel that Craig's films are considerably more violent in a visceral sense.

    Strange thing is I have no issues with Craig's violence. I think the thing about the Brosnans is all the emphasis upon shooting, often as I recall with machine-gun like effects. There's just something about it. Not that there's any blood spurting from the victims. It's just my personal feelings.

    I enjoy the Craig reboot very much.

    Brosnan no doubt used the machine gun more than any other Bond. I too take issue with that. It is the kind of thing that belongs in a Rambo film, but feels very out of place in Bond.

    Good point about the Rambo comparison. It sounds like that is probably my own reasoning about it also. Bond has always been associated with his walther PPK, not with machine guns.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Brosnan's era was the loudest in Bond history. He jumped from more explosions than John McLane and shot almost as much machine gun bullets as Rambo. Some spy.

    Along with the ‘comedy’ running and constant heavy breathing.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Keep in mind that the PTS in GE is set in the Cold War and Bond is shown mowing down Russians left and right with a machine gun. That’s something Cubby would have never allowed under his watch. The filmmakers from 1962-1989 always made it a point to show that Bond is only killing terrorists or people colluding with corrupt generals and arms dealers. When Bond grabs a machine gun in TLD, he isn’t mowing down Russians, he’s just shooting at them to draw them away (though he does drop a bomb on a tank, though you could argue it was done to save the lives of Karman and his men). I think that’s another way to illustrate the difference between the Cubby/Harry era and the Mikey/Babs era. In the former, Bond was emphasized as a spy who happened to have a license to kill, whereas by the latter it’s more strongly emphasized that Bond is a government assassin, a blunt instrument. When he’s asked what his profession is in SP it’s not “I’m a government spy” but a very succinct “I kill people”. Of course, Craig hasn’t been as blood thirsty as Brosnan was.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One thing that I do find troubling in GE is Bond’s use of license to kill over Russian soldier during the St. Petersburg firefight. They weren’t villainous Janus thugs, but likely good Russian soldiers that Orumov was using to his own ends. They didn’t know any better, they were following orders of a general who they didn’t know was a traitor. Of course, Bond actually has no choice but to defend himself. Thats all understandable. But it is peculiar that the film never stops to acknowledge the dynamic. There’s no moment of Bond feeling grim over having to do what he did in order to survive. It gives that whole sequence a callous vibe, especially once the tank comes into play and is done for laugh gags.

    It doesn’t hurt the film for me, but it is one of those little bothersome qualities. At least in OP it comes off more pointed with moments like Bond having no choice but to shoot a soldier who looks fairly young. Bond doesn’t look pleased during any of that. Of course moments later it’s kind of sidelined with Bond wearing a gorilla suit.

    That's actually a pretty fair criticism, and I love GE, it's in my top 5.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited September 2020 Posts: 8,216
    Roadphill wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One thing that I do find troubling in GE is Bond’s use of license to kill over Russian soldier during the St. Petersburg firefight. They weren’t villainous Janus thugs, but likely good Russian soldiers that Orumov was using to his own ends. They didn’t know any better, they were following orders of a general who they didn’t know was a traitor. Of course, Bond actually has no choice but to defend himself. Thats all understandable. But it is peculiar that the film never stops to acknowledge the dynamic. There’s no moment of Bond feeling grim over having to do what he did in order to survive. It gives that whole sequence a callous vibe, especially once the tank comes into play and is done for laugh gags.

    It doesn’t hurt the film for me, but it is one of those little bothersome qualities. At least in OP it comes off more pointed with moments like Bond having no choice but to shoot a soldier who looks fairly young. Bond doesn’t look pleased during any of that. Of course moments later it’s kind of sidelined with Bond wearing a gorilla suit.

    That's actually a pretty fair criticism, and I love GE, it's in my top 5.

    Same here. Though I would contest the claim that it is never acknowledged; Natalya pretty openly challenges him on it at the beach in Cuba. It wasn't just the death of her friends she was referring to. It's about as reflective as you can get without slowing the film down plotwise and the "it's what keeps me alive" line as a response tells you all you need to know of Bond's mindset. It doesn't matter whether he feels bad or not - it's what he had to do. Pretty well written, I think.

    I do, however, have a slight misgiving with the way certain bits of that archive shootout are choreographed. Bond rolling around on the floor firing on full automatic is a bit much. Another moment like using the library shelves to block the archive door would have been nice as it shows quick thinking.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    wintandkiddfarout wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that the Pierce Brosnan films are way too over the top violent. But I also have a confession. Out of the four Brosnans I do hold a soft spot towards Tomorrow Never Dies, even though I don't like the violence.

    What do you think of the Craig films, then? Particularly the first two? Brosnan's films tend to have a high death count, by and large (more in keeping with action films of the 80s in that regard) but I feel that Craig's films are considerably more violent in a visceral sense.

    Strange thing is I have no issues with Craig's violence. I think the thing about the Brosnans is all the emphasis upon shooting, often as I recall with machine-gun like effects. There's just something about it. Not that there's any blood spurting from the victims. It's just my personal feelings.

    I enjoy the Craig reboot very much.

    Brosnan no doubt used the machine gun more than any other Bond. I too take issue with that. It is the kind of thing that belongs in a Rambo film, but feels very out of place in Bond.

    Good point about the Rambo comparison. It sounds like that is probably my own reasoning about it also. Bond has always been associated with his walther PPK, not with machine guns.

    Good points. Its fun to double wield weapons in a Bond video game. Goldeneye Rogue Agent comes to mind but not in a film. It got me thinking about the stealth boat scene when he is straight up guns blazing.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    edited September 2020 Posts: 1,394
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Keep in mind that the PTS in GE is set in the Cold War and Bond is shown mowing down Russians left and right with a machine gun. That’s something Cubby would have never allowed under his watch. The filmmakers from 1962-1989 always made it a point to show that Bond is only killing terrorists or people colluding with corrupt generals and arms dealers. When Bond grabs a machine gun in TLD, he isn’t mowing down Russians, he’s just shooting at them to draw them away (though he does drop a bomb on a tank, though you could argue it was done to save the lives of Karman and his men). I think that’s another way to illustrate the difference between the Cubby/Harry era and the Mikey/Babs era. In the former, Bond was emphasized as a spy who happened to have a license to kill, whereas by the latter it’s more strongly emphasized that Bond is a government assassin, a blunt instrument. When he’s asked what his profession is in SP it’s not “I’m a government spy” but a very succinct “I kill people”. Of course, Craig hasn’t been as blood thirsty as Brosnan was.

    Its quite the opposite in fact.Craigs bond is MUCH more bloodthirsty than Brosnans.Especially in CR and QOS.Even M berates him in both films that he needs to ease up on killing people!

  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Keep in mind that the PTS in GE is set in the Cold War and Bond is shown mowing down Russians left and right with a machine gun. That’s something Cubby would have never allowed under his watch. The filmmakers from 1962-1989 always made it a point to show that Bond is only killing terrorists or people colluding with corrupt generals and arms dealers. When Bond grabs a machine gun in TLD, he isn’t mowing down Russians, he’s just shooting at them to draw them away (though he does drop a bomb on a tank, though you could argue it was done to save the lives of Karman and his men). I think that’s another way to illustrate the difference between the Cubby/Harry era and the Mikey/Babs era. In the former, Bond was emphasized as a spy who happened to have a license to kill, whereas by the latter it’s more strongly emphasized that Bond is a government assassin, a blunt instrument. When he’s asked what his profession is in SP it’s not “I’m a government spy” but a very succinct “I kill people”. Of course, Craig hasn’t been as blood thirsty as Brosnan was.

    Its quite the opposite in fact.Craigs bond is MUCH more bloodthirsty than Brosnans.Especially in CR and QOS.Even M berates him in both films that he needs to ease up on killing people!

    I don't have the source available right now, but I did read a list once concerning nr of kills by Bond per film. And the Brosnan films had more of them than Craig's. Craig's films portray the killings more realistically and brutally, as there is a thematic arc in both CR and QOS that Bond feels the burden of killing people. That does not make him more blood thirsty though. In fact you can argue it's opposite. Brosnan kills people like an afterthought, when Craig kills you feel the brutality of it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    jobo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Keep in mind that the PTS in GE is set in the Cold War and Bond is shown mowing down Russians left and right with a machine gun. That’s something Cubby would have never allowed under his watch. The filmmakers from 1962-1989 always made it a point to show that Bond is only killing terrorists or people colluding with corrupt generals and arms dealers. When Bond grabs a machine gun in TLD, he isn’t mowing down Russians, he’s just shooting at them to draw them away (though he does drop a bomb on a tank, though you could argue it was done to save the lives of Karman and his men). I think that’s another way to illustrate the difference between the Cubby/Harry era and the Mikey/Babs era. In the former, Bond was emphasized as a spy who happened to have a license to kill, whereas by the latter it’s more strongly emphasized that Bond is a government assassin, a blunt instrument. When he’s asked what his profession is in SP it’s not “I’m a government spy” but a very succinct “I kill people”. Of course, Craig hasn’t been as blood thirsty as Brosnan was.

    Its quite the opposite in fact.Craigs bond is MUCH more bloodthirsty than Brosnans.Especially in CR and QOS.Even M berates him in both films that he needs to ease up on killing people!

    I don't have the source available right now, but I did read a list once concerning nr of kills by Bond per film. And the Brosnan films had more of them than Craig's. Craig's films portray the killings more realistically and brutally, as there is a thematic arc in both CR and QOS that Bond feels the burden of killing people. That does not make him more blood thirsty though. In fact you can argue it's opposite. Brosnan kills people like an afterthought, when Craig kills you feel the brutality of it.

    I would certainly agree that is a fair assessment of Craig's first two films, as you say. And it makes sense, considering he's not a seasoned agent and is more sensitive to those feelings than Brosnan's version of the character, who is far more experienced. It's why SF and especially SP were pretty light on the same subject. Brosnan certainly had a lot more gunplay in his films, but I don't think he was 'bloodthirsty' in the way being described here - certainly no more or less than previous versions who killed in cold blood, or Craig's Bond who was very comfortable blasting his way out of Blofeld's compound.

    All of this really reminds me, on reflection, of how special Craig's raw interpretation of the character in his first two films was. He has always been good, but I think he naturally lost a bit of that edge after QoS and it's a shame we didn't get more of it.
  • jobojobo
    edited September 2020 Posts: 7,507
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Keep in mind that the PTS in GE is set in the Cold War and Bond is shown mowing down Russians left and right with a machine gun. That’s something Cubby would have never allowed under his watch. The filmmakers from 1962-1989 always made it a point to show that Bond is only killing terrorists or people colluding with corrupt generals and arms dealers. When Bond grabs a machine gun in TLD, he isn’t mowing down Russians, he’s just shooting at them to draw them away (though he does drop a bomb on a tank, though you could argue it was done to save the lives of Karman and his men). I think that’s another way to illustrate the difference between the Cubby/Harry era and the Mikey/Babs era. In the former, Bond was emphasized as a spy who happened to have a license to kill, whereas by the latter it’s more strongly emphasized that Bond is a government assassin, a blunt instrument. When he’s asked what his profession is in SP it’s not “I’m a government spy” but a very succinct “I kill people”. Of course, Craig hasn’t been as blood thirsty as Brosnan was.

    Its quite the opposite in fact.Craigs bond is MUCH more bloodthirsty than Brosnans.Especially in CR and QOS.Even M berates him in both films that he needs to ease up on killing people!

    I don't have the source available right now, but I did read a list once concerning nr of kills by Bond per film. And the Brosnan films had more of them than Craig's. Craig's films portray the killings more realistically and brutally, as there is a thematic arc in both CR and QOS that Bond feels the burden of killing people. That does not make him more blood thirsty though. In fact you can argue it's opposite. Brosnan kills people like an afterthought, when Craig kills you feel the brutality of it.

    I would certainly agree that is a fair assessment of Craig's first two films, as you say. And it makes sense, considering he's not a seasoned agent and is more sensitive to those feelings than Brosnan's version of the character, who is far more experienced. It's why SF and especially SP were pretty light on the same subject. Brosnan certainly had a lot more gunplay in his films, but I don't think he was 'bloodthirsty' in the way being described here - certainly no more or less than previous versions who killed in cold blood, or Craig's Bond who was very comfortable blasting his way out of Blofeld's compound.

    All of this really reminds me, on reflection, of how special Craig's raw interpretation of the character in his first two films was. He has always been good, but I think he naturally lost a bit of that edge after QoS and it's a shame we didn't get more of it.

    I agree. I was exaggerating a bit as I wanted to challenge the notion that Craig is 'more violent' than the other Bonds. I wouldn't say Brosnan was particularly blood thirsty either, although as has been discussed, the Ramboesque machine gun exploits annoy me.

    Although I love Skyfall the film, I agree it is a shame that the stylistic portration was toned down. I think we can probably blame QOS' bad critical reception for that...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Guys, I was just being facetious with that bloodthirsty line. :P But I do stand by that Brosnan was the most violent of the Bonds just on the virtue of having a higher body count.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2020 Posts: 6,290
    Not defending the Brosnan era but that was a different, pre-Bourne, pre-9/11 time in entertainment. Action films in the '80s and '90s didn't focus on random extra characters being killed...although Cubby always made a point to show that civilians weren't harmed by Bond's actions.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    echo wrote: »
    Not defending the Brosnan era but that was a different, pre-Bourne, pre-9/11 time in entertainment. Action films in the '80s and '90s didn't focus on random extra characters being killed...although Cubby always made a point to show that civilians weren't harmed by Bond's actions.

    Were civilians ever harmed by Bond?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    I simply feel that a movie that is a direct sequel (literally, immediate) has a bit more responsibility to do something thematically important (emotionally, narratively, for the character) with the material it is a sequel to. And QoS, whatever you think of the film, doesn't, I don't think. Regardless of varying opinions as to whether it is a "good" or "bad" film.

    I know for me, leaving the theater, I felt tremendously let down that a movie that was ostensibly a continuation of the Vesper story offered little in the way of emotional/mental reckoning for Bond.

    Sure, we see him getting wasted on the plane. We get a few lines plopped in there. We get the Yusef confrontation at the end. But..? Okay? I don't know. I still feel that way about the movie, even though its elemental feel has grown on me over the years as something of the black sheep of Bond films.

    I just can't follow: it's an underlying theme throughout the film. It's why he brings in White. It's why M says 'you would've to be a cold-hearted bastard if you didn't want revenge on the ones you loved' or words to that effect. It's why he can't sleep. It's why he instructs Camille. Why he says 'I don't think the dead care for revenge' after Mathis' s death. etc. etc. It's as solid an underlying theme as you can get in a movie.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Guys, I was just being facetious with that bloodthirsty line. :P But I do stand by that Brosnan was the most violent of the Bonds just on the virtue of having a higher body count.

    I agree with that. His body count in GE alone is huge. In the St. Petersburg prison, he just maws down Russian soldiers like it's nobody's business.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Guys, I was just being facetious with that bloodthirsty line. :P But I do stand by that Brosnan was the most violent of the Bonds just on the virtue of having a higher body count.

    I agree with that. His body count in GE alone is huge. In the St. Petersburg prison, he just maws down Russian soldiers like it's nobody's business.

    The way he runs and slides with the AK.

    Brrrrrrrrrrrrreerp
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    Brosnans Bond just found himself in more large scale confrontations that Craig has so far.Its not that hes necessarily bloodthirsty ( He even says to Renard in TWINE that he doesnt like killing in cold blood ) its just that he has to kill a lot more people to get out of that situation alive.
Sign In or Register to comment.