^ I agree with you, this is not the best bond, as touted by some. It's not as good as Casino Royale, and no where near as emotionally involving as it either... I was bummed out that Javier Bardem's villain wasn't as maniacal or as deep as I thought he was going to be(his one shot entrance and sexual advance towards Bond being highlights). I felt like too much was made of the many bond references(which weren't entirely over my head), the humour was excruciatingly dry, and the character of M being a central part of the plot a huge mistake. M dragged the film down, I did not care for her and
I didn't hate the movie, but man, was I disappointed with it. If you're going to go in a darker direction with your franchise, make it worthwhile and not just an excuse to have a shallow lead character... These last 3 films have been heavily inspired by the Bourne franchise, but they have never achieved the depth of that character...
It's still one of the best looking films of the year though, so that's something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomac
Sad to say, but while I loved this movie, some of the effects actually looked like they were done in AE by a film school student. The breath steam during the night scenes in Scotland were terribly done and the flashlight in the field was equally bad. MGM obviously put as much money behind this as they could, but there were definitely a few areas that were glossed over when it came to cost.
|
Just wanted to add, that adding people's breath digitally always looks terrible, for example Social Network.