Pageviews past week

Saturday, July 19, 2014

For Your Eyes Only

This is one of the better Roger Moore outings in the 007 series. The half hazard acting techniques of Moore can be ignored due to the superior plot and imaginative and frequent action sequences. The Bond Girl (or Woman) in this movie is one of the sexiest and most exotic of the series. The screenplay of For Your Eye only bring you back to the spy thriller genre like movies. The script is intrigue and knowledgeable and focuses more on plot points rather than action scenes. While there are plenty of creative action shots this outing relies more on intelligence than unbelievable stunts. The audience is made to think about the plot points rather than is that stunt really possible. (A trait the James Bond films have become so famous for.) This movie is type of movie I like to see when I look in the spy section. It makes me ponder rather than gasp. It engages my mind to think ahead to the next scene and makes me think like a real spy (or at least hope I can) rather than be astonished at the unbelievable and the far fetched moves bond makes to escape the bad guys. There are a few flaws however the acting of all the actors seems a bit hokey not just the part of Bond. I keep asking myself "if these people are spies why are they so stupid." I keep saying to my self I hope our FBI and CIA agents are smarter than the Russian and British agents portrayed in this movie. I then remember that its just a movie and it was made in the early 80's 81 to be exact and the audience was different than so were the scripts. The pace of this film was decent. There were times I didn't want to even so much as sneeze and a few scene s I couldn't wait for them to be over. They were all necessary however to move the storyline along briskly. The running time of two hours and eight minutes was a perfect way to fill my early morning hours. Grade B-

No comments:

A note from an editor!

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into this piece, especially on a Saturday morning. I can tell you definitely took good notes of everything that was going on during the event!

We still have some work to do before this piece is ready to print. Your piece has a lot of information, but it doesn’t sound like a news article. What was the point of his speech/presentation? Why was he addressing this audience? What is Vanguard? What does the company do – who does it serve? You spend a lot of time narrating (for example, how he was injured), but did not report on the purpose of the event. You can maybe mention his appearance/joking about it in a sentence or two, but do not take several paragraphs to do so. Also, I like how you mentioned where the name “Vanguard” comes from.

There are a lot of spelling errors in this piece – make sure you proof read each sentence carefully.

I know I am getting back to you a little later I hoped, and I’m sorry about that! But if you have time tonight, please go through my suggestions and try to rework your piece. You can send me what you have tonight/tomorrow morning. Please bring a copy of it to the meeting tomorrow and we will discuss it further from there.

Once again, thanks for your hard work and promptness! Remember this is a learning process, and we are all part of the Waltonian team!

Talk to you soon!

Ten Most pathetic movie stars that still have careers.

(In A - B -C Order)

1. Hayden Christensen

2. Tom Crusie

3. Kevin Costner

4. Keeanu Reeves

5. Denise Richards

6. Adam Sandler

7. Arnold Schwarzenegger

8. William Shatner

9. Sylvester Stalloan

10. John Claude Van dahm