By continuing to use our site, you agree to us using cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.


The three things wrong with Skyfall

By on 21 January 2013 in Films

The three things wrong with Skyfall
We can't wait to see what this M has in store for us
Comment Comment Share Twitter Facebook Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Email

By now we’re hoping you’ve all seen James Bond’s latest outing, Skyfall. If so, read on. If not, please stop now because this post is just one huge spoiler after another.

Still with us? Okay, then lets dive in.

Skyfall has been a phenomenal success at the box office and rightly so. Many have called it the best Bond film ever made. We can’t go that far but it is certainly the best looking (the cinematography, particularly in the scenes set in China is Oscar-worthy), the best acted (Fiennes, Bardem and Finney deliver standout performances and in so doing push Craig to new heights) and the best written (the dialogue, particularly the repartee between Bond and Silva, Moneypenny and Q, is the most consistently entertaining in the series.)

Despite all of that, there are three things about the film that bothered us as we left the cinema and have been eating away at us ever since.

Craig’s suits look almost painted on to to his muscle-clad frame.

Let’s kick off with the smallest but no less irritating niggle. Even though we confess that our taste tends towards the classic, we’re not complete and utter luddites here at the Guide. We’re well aware that the fashion is currently for shorter jackets and more tightly-fitting suits. But costume designer Jany Temime and fashion designer Tom Ford have taken this to comical extremes in Skyfall.

"I can't wait to get home and get out of this suit."

“I can’t wait to get home and get out of this suit.”

Whereas he looked fantastic in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, in Skyfall, Craig’s suits look almost painted on to to his muscle-clad frame. They look painful and constricting enough in the quieter scenes but in the action sequences, you get the impression that he’s going to burst out of them at any moment, Bruce Banner style. During the chase sequence across London following Silva’s escape, we watched with increasing concern for Bond. Not because we thought Silva was likely to do him any harm but rather that his suit was going to rip open at any moment. When he did finally arrive at M’s committee hearing, we were certain it would be wearing nothing but the tattered remains of his jacket and trousers.

Bond arrives at the committee hearing. No wait that's not right...

Bond arrives at the committee hearing. No wait that’s not right…

Skyfall breaks the rules of the Bond franchise.

Not fussed about the suits? Just us then. Well, here’s something much more important: Skyfall breaks the rules of the Bond franchise.

We’re accustomed to suspending disbelief in a Bond film – and happy to do so. It’s part of the deal. The filmmakers deliver two hours of exotic, exhilarating escapism and in return the audience agrees to overlook the more, er, unrealistic plot points. That’s fine; we’ve been doing that in Bond movies for 50 years and it’s a deal we’re happy to honour.

But Skyfall breaks its own rules. It asks its audience to turn a blind eye to at least three glaring holes in its plot.

The first hole is the fact that Bond is shot twice during the pre-credit sequence. He’s hit first as he’s at the control of the digger on the train and again when Moneypenny misses the villain and knocks him off the train. And yet for the rest of the film – despite a number of shots of Bond topless and one of him actually pulling a bullet out of his wound – we never see the second bullet hole. No reference is made to it and we’re expected to simply forget it ever happened.

One wound, two wounds - who can be bothered to keep track of all these pesky details?

One wound, two wounds – who can be bothered to keep track of all these pesky details?

The second hole is Silva’s plan. Even by grandiose, lunatic Bond villain standards, Silva’s plot for revenge on M – more specifically the ‘getting captured and then escaping’ element – makes absolutely no sense at all and depends far too much on coincidence and blind luck to work. Lets overlook the fact that his plan demands prior knowledge of where MI6 would re-locate to, where he’d be held and how Q would try to break into his laptop. Lets overlook too the fact that this little plot ‘surprise’ has been used far too often recently – most notably by the Joker in 2008’s The Dark Knight and last year by Loki in The Avengers – to be effective on the audience. The real problem is what follows. With Bond now chasing him, Silva sets off an explosion that drops an Underground train designed to kill any pursuers. Wait. What? Has Silva rigged the entire Underground network so he could set off explosions at any given moment? And why did he need to be captured and then escape anyway? And if he posses the seemingly magical ability to set off explosions at the exact time and place that his circumstances demand, why not simply set off an explosion in the committee hearing in which M is appearing? Why does he have to get himself across London so he can barge in himself and shoot her? Sorry Skyfall producers, this is way beyond unrealistic, it’s completely nonsensical.

Not the most straight-forward way to get rid of an enemy

Not the most straight-forward way to get rid of an enemy

Thirdly – and most irritating of all to us – it breaks its own timeline. When the producers rebooted the franchise with such panache in 2009’s brilliant Casino Royale, they found a wonderful way of reintroducing Bond’s iconic Aston Martin DB5. Since the film is set in the 21st century, it made no sense to give Bond a DB5 as a company car. Instead, they have him win it from a particularly unlikeable chap during a poker game in the Bahamas. Clever.

The Casino Royale DB5

The Casino Royale DB5

But Skyfall completely ignores this new timeline. When Bond takes M to his storage facility in London and fires up the DB5, we’re delighted to see the old girl. But as the film progresses, it turns out that this is not the car from Casino Royale (which, for those of you really paying attention had Bahamian number plates and was left-hand drive) but rather Sean Connery’s DB5 from Goldfinger, a car which – according to Casino Royale – now belongs in an alternate continuity. The first clue is that it’s right-hand drive. Then, M tells us it’s fitted with an ejector seat (“Go ahead, eject me. See if I care” she quips to Bond during their drive to Scotland) and, finally, we get to see the hidden machine guns being used in the final showdown with Silva. Asking your audience to go along with a reboot (while keeping some of the existing actors, most notably Judy Dench) is a stretch. The producers managed to pull it off because Casino Royale was so thoroughly fresh and entertaining. Subsequently going back and breaking the new timeline you’ve established is a slap in the audience’s face.

Bond is given three missions during the course of Skyfall and he cocks each one of them up in turn.

Perhaps the biggest issue we had with Skyfall though is Bond’s complete and utter failure to do anything right in this film. Having him make a few mistakes is one thing. After all, it’s exciting to see Bond get into trouble then use his wits and training to get out of it and come out on top. The problem with Skyfall is that you never get that rewarding payoff. At no point do you feel Bond actually wins.

Think about it – Bond is given three missions during the course of Skyfall and he cocks each one of them up in turn.

"Has it come to this? A Heineken."

“Has it come to this? A Heineken.”

In mission one, during the pre-credit sequence, he’s given one simple task: recover the stolen drive “containing the identity of every agent embedded in terrorist organizations across the globe.” This is the sort of thing that he shouldn’t have to break a sweat over. Instead, after a clumsy pursuit, not only does he lose the drive and let the culprit get away but he gets himself shot by his own teammate and – the ultimate insult – is consigned to drinking Heineken in a beach hut somewhere rather less than glamorous. What a loser.

Five minutes too late, Bond finally remembers his training and takes control

Five minutes too late, Bond finally remembers his training and takes control

In mission two, he’s sent to find Silva. After Silva’s deliciously entertaining grand entrance in the island’s computer room, we’re taken outside where Bond is put in a classic tight-spot: forced into a sadistic shooting competition with Sévérine’s life in the balance. We can’t see how Bond can possibly get out of this. But that’s the joy of Bond movies: wondering how he’s going to overcome the odds of seemingly impossible situations and then marveling as he does so. How will he save the girl, humiliate the villain and return home victorious? Oh that’s right, he doesn’t. At first, he’s completely powerless to stop Silva killing Sévérine and yet, moments later, he disarms all the henchmen and captures Silva with the help of an MI6 back-up team (a radio beacon, that old trick.) Couldn’t he have done that five minutes earlier when Sévérine was, you know, still alive? Oh well, at least he captures Silva, right? Wrong. Because getting captured is exactly what Silva wants. So, Bond lets the girl die and actually facilitates the villain’s plan. What a loser.

"Merry Christmas, everyone!"

“Merry Christmas, everyone!”

In mission three, he has one single objective: keep M alive. Not hard for a man of Bond’s training, surely? Wrong. Bond takes M to a completely remote location and puts Father Christmas in charge of protecting her while he wastes time shooting at henchmen. What’s that? Oh, you’re right, it’s not Father Christmas. Behind the comedy beard is Albert Finney as Kincade, the Bonds’ faithful groundskeeper (so faithful in fact that he hangs around the Bond family home for years when there’s no sign whatsoever that Bond is ever coming back – but we digress.) While initially portrayed as a valuable ally, dishing out wisdom and showing himself to be handy with a shotgun, Kincade then has something of a lobotomy and starts switching on torches which attracts Silva’s attention and leaving the room at precisely the moment he is needed most. End result? Yes, predictably, M is not kept alive at all. Quite the opposite. Bond lets his boss die at the hands of a frankly rather effeminate villain. What a loser.

Back to Bond basics

Hey look, we’re being picky and we know it. We started this post by telling you how good Skyfall is and it is. Overall, it’s a great ride and a very worthy addition to the Bond canon. What makes it really important though – beyond the cinematography, acting and script – is how the film sets up the series to reach even greater heights in the future.

Bond's Mummy

Bond’s Mummy

Since the Brosnan era, Bond has seemed slightly ill at ease, lumbered with a guilty conscience. The producers clearly felt that Bond had no place in the modern world. So with Goldeneye they made a number of changes, the most notable of which was introducing Judy Dench as the new M. How clever they thought they were: give Bond a female boss and have her deliver lines like “I think you’re a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War.” How knowing, how self-deprecating.

The problem is it never worked. M has been the weakest thing about the Bond series ever since. We know this flies in the face of almost every other opinion on the subject but we’ve never liked Dench’s portrayal of M. She always seemed weak, never convincing. It just never ever felt right for Bond to be bossed around by this frumpy old woman. It always seemed like he was taking his mother along for the ride. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the opening sequence of Skyfall. As Bond and Eve are in pursuit of the stolen drive, having Judy Dench bark the likes of “Bond! Where are you Bond? We’ve lost your location!” into his ear just seemed ludicrous. She wasn’t helping but just distracting and getting in the way. No, M should be a man and preferably a military man, who can relate to Bond and – just as Bernard Lee used to do – begrudgingly admire his methods and philandering ways.

Back to basics

Back to basics

No excuses, no guilt just the unadulterated pleasure of seeing our favourite “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” back where he belongs.

So, the one huge thing that Skyfall got right was killing off Judy Dench’s M, replacing her with the brilliant Ralph Fiennes and, in so doing, taking Bond back to basics.

As the film draws to a close, we leave Bond exactly where we look forward to seeing him next time: in what looks like a carbon copy of Bernard Lee’s office from the Connery era with its leather-panelled inner door and Moneypenny typing loyally away outside just waiting to be flirted with. No excuses, no guilt just the unadulterated pleasure of seeing our favourite “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” back where he belongs. We can’t wait for Bond 24.


The three things wrong with Skyfall

Skyfall has been a phenomenal success at the box office and rightly so. Many have called it the best Bond film ever made. Perhaps it is but, despite that, there are three things about the film that bothered us as we left the cinema and have been eating away at us ever since.

Read other articles about:


Our editor-in-chief, the self-proclaimed "greatest wit, raconteur and bon vivant of our age", borders on delusional. Over the years, the fool has squandered more money on fast cars, Swiss watches and electronic gadgetry of all kinds than he – or Mrs Fool – cares to remember. Come nightfall, he can invariably be found stumbling out of Dukes mumbling “just one more Martini; I could have handled just one mmmmm… [thud!]”

Read more posts by this author

Contact the author

  • Yasir Qureshi

    Agree 100% but two further points. 1. DC can’t do the smooth suave thing as well as Sean. Example, the way he sorts out his cuffs as he lands in the train. Idiot. 2. There is ZERO sexual chemistry in DC’s bond films – the ladies are hot but you don’t feel they are interested in him.

  • Nick P.

    Also being quite impressed by the incredibly tight suits, looked it up on Google, and it turns out Bond had a series of similar suits in different “sizes”. One for running, for fighting, for shooting, for standing still and looking suave, et cetera.

    What bothered me most, is that Moneypenny (next to the fact that she actually turns out to be “moneypenny”) doesn’t take a second shot. Bond falls of the bridge, leaving the badguyon the train, an open target, for 10 to 15 seconds. Shooting the bloke would have ended the plot right then and there.

    Still… beats the hell out of Quantum of Solace.

    • The Prodigal Fool

      That’s exactly what I need, Nick. One suit to walk in, another to, eh, sit down in. * Undoes his top button as he types *

      P.S. I think we can all agree that pretty much anything beats Quantum of Solace, a mess of a movie if ever there was one.

      • JohnDoey

        Yeah, but Quantum of Solace was done in a writer’s strike, right? They literally had no script. The director and actors made it up as they went along.

    • Dublo

      Possibly the biggest moment of disconnect in the film. Why the hell didn’t she shoot Patrice?
      But one has to ask why Bond had a back up field agent helping him in the first place. The last time this was “work experience boy” Carter in Casino Royale, and he ballsed things up spectacularly. Anyway, Bond should be trusted to complete the mission on his own. How many near failures has he had before now? Loads. But the point is, he is usually given carte blanche to operate on his own. In Skyfall, this autonomy is taken away from him for the first time and what happens? He get’s shot (presumably in the exact same bullet hole he was shot in five mins before).
      Look, I went to the press screening of Skyfall and everyone was wetting their pants over it. I felt like I’d seen a different movie. Sure, it was awesome and fun…but it made a mess out of its own rules, the series timeline and laughed at just about every logical choice Bond or Silva could have made.
      I still think Skyfall is a great Bond movie, in the same way say The Spy Who Loved Me is. But here’s the thing: Spy is ridiculous and so is Skyfall. It’s a long way from the heights of Majesty’s or Casino Royale.

      • The Prodigal Fool

        Dublo nails it.

  • Peter D

    TPF, annoyingly, many of those questions are fair.

    But here’s the thing: cinema is ultimately about the suspension of disbelief, right? A good film rewards your willingness to do that with something that makes it worthwhile. In Skyfall’s case that’s stunning visuals, a sense of grandeur, some royal action lineage and a whole bunch of interesting new ideas to think about, and that’s good enough for me. :D

    But hey, At least Lindelof didn’t write it……..or did he?

    First article i’ve been interested in for a while guys, some good points made.

    PS Die another day surely sucks the most balls?

    • JohnDoey

      Suspension of disbelief doesn’t cover giant gaping plot holes or characters that do things for no discernible reason. Those kinds of problems suspend our suspension of disbelief.

  • Viktor Andersson

    I think that one of the major faults in this movie is Bond´s home. I understand that it must be a wink to Sean Connery to let Bond originate from Scotland, but it doesn´t make sense! If being from Scotland, why has he then been saying “For England” for 20 or so movies? Not “For Britain”, not “For the Empire”, but “For England”. It makes absolutely no sense!

    • Dublo

      Hey Viktor,
      It’s not actually a nod to Sean (at least not directly, anyway) it is, in fact, a nod to Ian Fleming’s James Bond, whose father was Scottish.
      Fleming made Bond Scottish (or at least half Scottish) after he saw Sean Connery in Dr. No, so that’s a case of the films influencing the books. But Fleming himself was the son of a Scot, so perhaps it’s not so unusual.
      As to Bond constantly saying things like “the things I do for England” this was probably due to the fact that many Americans did (and often still do) have a bit of an issue when understanding the difference between English and British. It also sounds better.
      Of all the Bonds, only Sir Roger and Daniel Craig can claim to be English, with Sean being a Scot, George being an Aussie, Tim being Welsh, and Pierce being Irish. Of the two Bonds that have referenced Scotland in the films, one was Australian, the other English.
      Trying to find continuity and sense in the Bond films is often more difficult than you might first imagine.

  • Louisa M

    I’m with you on this! And as for chemistry in this film…nil points Mr Bond

  • cal (chris I)

    I loved the movie. I actually saw it in the theater (not often that that happens) – I spent the first 10 minutes riveted to the screen during the first chase. It was awesome – till he was shot off the train.

    I think the faults pointed out here are fair but I also agree with the point that the movie was really good. The worst part was Finney – it was one step away from a Tarzan yodel. My previous favorite was CR and before that FRWL.

    Bond’s father has been Scottish since the books. Hard to figure out why he did not know his property had been sold. Seems sort of important.

    • Dublo

      I’d agree that Kincaid seems a bit like an odd inclusion. Until you realise that the part was written with Sean Connery in mind.
      No doubt this would have made more of a nonsensical mess of things, but that was the thinking.
      I can tell you on good authority that Sir Sean was never approached, but the fact that this shadowy reflection of him still made it past the first script meeting seems rather strange.
      As to Bond not knowing his house had been sold, the only difference this really seems to have made was not having access to a rather numerous collection of shotguns. Now, why the hell he would rely on these rather than collecting a rather more useful cache of weapons is beyond me. Just as he could have benefitted from using Q’s radio whilst at Skyfall.
      The dots of logic are extremely hard to connect in Skyfall, but at least it makes more sense than You Only Live Twice.

  • GHenderson

    Dumb question/comment. I always thought James Bond was an alias along with the agent number 007. To find that his real name is James Bond was a bit of a let down.

    • JohnDoey

      Or maybe his parent’s grave stones have “Bond” on them in order to protect Bond’s real identity? A small sacrifice to make for Queen and country.

  • Swazigeorge

    What a refreshing take on Skyfall. I thought my disappointment with it was to be my guilty little secret, known to me alone. I bought the DVD just to check that my initial disenchantment was not misplaced.

    On clothes: in this latest film, Bond’s clothing is designed for a metrosexual half his age. Brioni it was in Casino and I think Quantum; serious, properly tailored suits that concealed rather than showboated the dangerous muscle beneath. Next time, please, Brioni again or Savile Row.

    Judi Dench as M is proof that a consummate actress does not necessarily equal good characterisation. I’m all for women’s rights to equal job opportunity except as bosses of men licenced to kill: Fiennes may prove me wrong but for my taste, it needs an Alec Guinness type – intellectual, non-action (Fiennes character is apparently former CO of 22 SAS), patently superior to Bond in certain key, brain areas, a figure to be respected. Bernard Lee was inspired casting; Fiennes is too lean, too close to a double O himself.

    The convulted end-plot designed to get us to Scotland and his childhood: unforgivably sloppy, lazy stuff. What agent would seriously jeopardise himself and his boss by setting themselves up as targets in an indefensible location? And what a silly, unprofessional way for Bardem (excellent villain that he was) to attack the granite manse.

    Its not that Skyfall was a disaster, its just that it was a wasted opportunity to capitalise on a good idea – getting rid of Dench. 3 out of 10.

    • mdelvecchio

      also bothersome about the home-defense-with-sticks action segment was its familiarity — same thing happened in Home Alone and Lost Boys.

    • orthorim

      I loved the cinematography in Skyfall but the whole thing left me unsatisfied; and only now it’s clear that is because Bond is just messing up too much. I don’t care about him getting shot twice. Even the evil plot which made no sense, I could forgive – plenty of Bond movies where that is the case.

      But failing at everything – that’s not James Bond.

  • His Shadow

    The plot was nonsensical, and for far more reasons than you’ve given here. You never even addressed the ridiculous notion that Bond was unaware he miserably failed all the tests to have him qualify for field duty. Never mind the complete and utter abandonment of the plot line setup by the first two movies.

    However, your explanation as to why Dench supposedly doesn’t work as “M” comes across as flatly misogynist nonsense. The lines you quote are a fault of the writer and director, not a failing of Dench’s portrayal.

    • The Prodigal Fool


      And, to be fair, Dench is much better – and, indeed, credible – in Casino Royale for that very reason. She has far better lines and motivation in the first Craig outing.

      That said, I stand by the fact that I think having Ralph Fiennes in the role has enormous promise and I’m chomping at the bit to see what they do with it next time out.

      • His Shadow

        I don’t disagree that Fienees is a welcome addition. I just don’t think it’s a good thing for Bond to fall back on the franchises early history of treating all women as easily discarded set pieces.

        But we will see…

        • AJ

          I may be nuts, but I think women just as well as men can credibly and believably order a super spy to shoot missiles out of his remote-controlled Jaguar at a privately-owned nuclear submarine owned by a man with a gun made of literal gold in order to prevent a satellite from disabling all of our electrical appliances.

    • orthorim

      Misogynist – I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      Thinking that maybe a grandmotherly figure isn’t the most convincing MI5 boss is not “inspired by a hatred of women” (Dictionary definition). Maybe you meant sexist? I’d still disagree but it would make more sense.

  • – Sebastian P

    “Craig’s suits look almost painted on to to his muscle-clad frame.”


  • JohnDoey

    Yes, you can wait for the next Bond movie — because it’s still a couple of years away.

  • Clement

    I thought it was pretty clear in the movie that moneypenny didn’t hit him when he was on the train. He just had enough of being played like a pawn and felt betrayed by Q (ok he would have to think about all this WHILE fist fighting the bad guy). He could hear what Moneypenny was saying and he knew that she was going to fire. He just jumped.

  • roadsider

    No mention of the fact that Silva invades Skyfall with a veritable army against high profile government agents and the British army and RAF isn’t called in to help out? What chance do you think Silva’s choppers would have had against Harrier Jump Jets and F-16s, not to mention a few thousand marines? Imagine something similar happening in the U.S. You don’t think the Pentagon would respond in force if the CIA director and one of its agents were under siege at a Virginia farm house?

  • Nick

    The things you noted with the suit, DB5 and bullet wounds are minor to me (how the hell did he survive being shot and falling like that though?!) What irked me was the villains plot, as you discussed. I guess you could say he wanted one last face-to-face with M, and maybe shooting her personally would be more satisfying than blowing her up. The movie was very entertaining, but a departure from “classic” Bond, heavily focused on action and with believability stretched past the breaking point.

    Some things that you didn’t mention that annoyed me about the film. Why did Q, the supposed genius who “invented” Silva’s cipher, plug the super-villains laptop directly into the MI5 computer network? Any respectable organization will have a quarantine computer to plug in hardware of unknown origin. And why did they kill Severine so quickly? She was a sexy, interesting character, who’s dies shortly after being introduced, in anti-climactic fashion. Why did they leave Bond, M and Kincade to fend for themselves against Silva in a helicopter and several dozen commandos? For a recent film, and ever increasing revelations about government surveillance in the news, where are the predator drones?

    Spot on with Dench being a weak “M”, Ralph Fiennes will be much better. Yes, men are better at some things than women, being the head of an intelligence service is one example or even playing one on film.

  • Jack Stalnaker

    These seem like a bit of a stretch. I didn’t notice the suits any more than I notice on any well-built man. As for the car from Goldfinger, why do you think it must come from the same Goldfinger incident? We can justifiably assume the Goldfinger events happened to New Bond with the same car. After all, the three new movies don’t cover every waking moment of Bond’s life. After all, it’s clear female M knows the history, and she wasn’t there in the original Goldfinger. The over-the-top stuff with Silva–well of course. That’s why we’re watching a James Bond movie. You’ve also missed the bigger picture: the writers and director are clearly telling us (almost painfully so) that they’re bringing Old Bond back. Every scene is basically yelling, “WE MISS OLD BOND. REMEMBER WHEN HE DID THIS?”, going so far as to clear the stage for Old Bond.

  • Matt

    Casino Royale was released in 2006…not 2009. And Judi Dench as M was used to capitalize off of Stella Rimington, the Head of MI5 from 1992 to 1996 back when she first appeared in GoldenEye in 1995.

  • Gary Horsman

    Isn’t liking ‘Skyfall’ despite its glaring plot holes and ridiculous inconsistencies kind of like having a girlfriend who treats you like garbage and sleeps around, but you put up with her because she’s gorgeous?

    Perhaps if ‘Skyfall’ is held up as, “the best looking … best acted … and the best written” Bond film of the franchise, can we admit that perhaps (perhaps) our standards are a little low if those are the redeeming qualities that redeem a movie from having little to no story, or in this case, a completely ludicrous one?

    I’ve always been under the impression that what makes for a good movie is storytelling. All elements must support the story, whether it be dialog, character, special effects, cinematography. They all exist for one single purpose: to serve the story. Otherwise they’re just all shiny objects to distract us from getting immersed and lost inside a narrative.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a little mindless entertainment from time to time, but let’s call it what it is and not pretend it’s somehow noble art.

    We might come back to this movie ten years later, after the hypnotic glare has worn off and admit after realizing how awful the plot is that it wasn’t as good as we once believed it was.

    Good stories stand the test of time. We’ll have the next few Bond films to satiate our appetites for the ephemeral delight.

  • Robert

    Well in my opinion it does matter for only you not for 007 fans .. Bond finally beat Silva, Saved the life of Berenice and probably M too. Skyfall crossed $1 Million mark, these things really matters rather what you are saying can give satisfaction to you only. I came here to read some valid argument not about Bond and Skyfall .. My apologies but you really mean it!

    Craig Grey Suit