It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Was it just me, or:
It was, but I don't think it was relevant anymore in the second act. I think the whole agents names thing was just a sick, perverted game to get at M and Bond. Once Silva came face-to-face with Bond and M, the damage didn't need to be done. His mission was now to kill M, as he tried to in the courtroom. It would've been nice to have a bit more on that, but IMO it was more of a setup to the second act rather than the core element of the story.
Did anyone see the CGI face of daniel craig on a stunt double, because ign says there was?????
Hired assassin. Paid for by Silva in the sum of 4m euros.
I agree about that, but I think it should have been cleared up before the credits rolled, even a throwaway comment in the office at the finale.
It had everything. But the story with M dying can never be done again by judy dench.
It also explores james bonds ancestrial home and parents. doesnt that make the best bond film. It explores stuff no film has before. Thats why i think its the best.
The DB5 scene was an amazing moment in the Royal Albert Hall. The whole place went crazy, and so it was a bit of a letdown to just hear the audience in the cinema today do an excited mumble when it happened. Wanted everyone to go crazy like me! (cinema audiences are so reserved these days!)
Does anyone think it was odd not seeing how bond got out of the ocean. who saved him ????
I am presuming it was the bond girl at the begining. when he was on the bed. some parts just felt a bit of a flash, they happend so quickly.
Exactly. Not so much a plot hole as a common plot device.
Only for the bike chase scenes as far as I'm aware.
I do not necessarily object to CGI when it's put to good use. DAD is how it's not put to good use. In this film though, even upon two viewings, I can't quite pinpoint where it was used (unless I go by what I've been told) so it leaves me quite satisfied with the results. Again, if CGI becomes indistinguishable from the real footage, then it's been well used. But that, of course, is the primary condition. Once it becomes too visible, I find it inappropriate for a Bond film.
The only time I rolled my eyes with regards to CGI was when the helicopters turned up at Silva's island. I don't really see the need to CGI helicopters.
Its certainly the best since goldeneye.
I agree.
I guess that's debatable. I don't remember noticing it was CGI, in fact I now have to take your word for it because I'm still not entirely convinced. I will be giving the film a third viewing this Sunday and I will pay closer attention to it.
In your opinion. Don't state is as a fact please. For example: IMO, it's way better than QOS though just not as good as CR.