Skyfall

6

mrmadridNov 10, 2012

I am baffled by the gushing praise for this movie. I like Craig, who is once again a more convincing and human Bond than his predecessors, and the script has its merits. The dialogue is actually interesting and convincing, at many points,I am baffled by the gushing praise for this movie. I like Craig, who is once again a more convincing and human Bond than his predecessors, and the script has its merits. The dialogue is actually interesting and convincing, at many points, rather than just serving as filler between action scenes, as had been the formula in previous Bond films. That said, I thought the action delivered nothing new, the villain was well-acted but utterly formulaic, and the film just devolved into predictable mediocrity once it shifted to a hackneyed assault-the-house scene in Scotland. Overall, an underwhelming experience.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

goldfox17Dec 3, 2012

don't know what movie those people claiming its the best bond yet where watching but it was not skyfall. well Skyfall does have its moments of that Bond felling it tends to go towards what you would expect a action pack CIA movie. rally usesdon't know what movie those people claiming its the best bond yet where watching but it was not skyfall. well Skyfall does have its moments of that Bond felling it tends to go towards what you would expect a action pack CIA movie. rally uses any gadgets and his big one is a gun! really a gun that only shoots if Bond holds it. lame. overall Id give this movie a 6 out of 10. if it did not have the bond title in it and was ratting it as far as action movies go I would give it an 8. good thing though is I think its the best out of the Craig bonds.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

emilyneedsafrieNov 10, 2012

Firstly, and this isn't a spoiler, but when James Bond and Kincaide are out practicing shooting, didn't Kincaide have two black labrador dogs by his side? You never saw them again - what happened to them? OK, summary - not the best JB movie,Firstly, and this isn't a spoiler, but when James Bond and Kincaide are out practicing shooting, didn't Kincaide have two black labrador dogs by his side? You never saw them again - what happened to them? OK, summary - not the best JB movie, but not the worst. It was more like a suspense movie with some action sequences thrown in, with the best one right at the beginning, which was outstanding - like "Taken 2", it seems that the rooftops in Istanbul are irresistible to goodies and baddies chasing each other either on foot or on motorbikes. It was a great scene and a great opening.

As for the film in general, there was WAY too much talking, way too much focus on M, in fact, it seemed more like a movie about HER with JB as her sidekick. Way too many closeups - we don't need to see their pores or every wrinkle - back up a little please, it didn't add anything to the movie, and if anything detracted from it. It was hard to believe this was a JB movie - I remember the days when it was FUN going to see a JB movie, you were taken out of your world, shown gadgets that were beyond your imagination, people were out to take over the world, and JB was the hero who was never affected by anything, maybe he got a few scrapes and bruises but he never got shot or tortured, he was always after the most beautiful girl in the room, and was, it seemed, invincible. THAT"S the JB I want to see - I don't want to be presented with a movie where they're trying to make him real, make the audience relate to him or understand him or feel sorry for him, or have him age (poorly I might add)0 - I want escapism, I want to know that a forever-youthful or at least non-aging JB will save the world and only have a scratch on his face for all his efforts, after using countless gadgets that we in the real world couldn't even dream of - and I think that these JB movies have lost their way in this regard. There were so many holes in this plot too - how did the villain escape out of that glass enclosure, for example? One minute he's in there, obviously more securely encased than Hannibel Lector in his cage - next thing he's out and free with two dead guards on the ground, and yet we don't know how he escaped. So poorly done. I was so disappointed that the grand finale was simply a gunfight - yes, a helicopter was involved and it was well filmed, but still - just a gun fight? Nothing clever or James Bondish or "MI6" ish at all - just guns and explosives, like any group of baddies in an action film - and throughout the film, the most exciting gadgets that were introduced were a gun that would only fire if JB held it (the handle was palm-print sensitive - but worse than that, it didn't blow up if someone else tried to fire it - all that happened was that it wouldn't work - I mean, how unimaginative is that?) and a small "radio" that gave off JB's location if he pressed a button. Futuristic? Creative? A gadget JB would be proud of? I think not. I must admit that the movie wasn't as bad as I thought it would be (after having read the pretty awful reviews), but as I already wrote, there was far too much talking, far too few action scenes and far too much focus on M. JB seemed to struggle in this, and yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah about him getting old, but we don't go to JB to see an aging actor or agent struggling to keep up - I'm going for some escapism! Some wild, fun excitement and a glimpse into a secret department that has top of the line weapons and gadgets to use against the forces of evil. I don't want to know that the best they can do is a palm-printed gun that only fires when JB holds it. I mean, come on, can't you do better than that?
I also must say that if I had seen it in a regular movie theater, I would have given it a 4 out of 10. I saw it in 2D at the Imax, with a massive screen and great sound - so that definitely added to it, which is why I gave it a 6. This was no JB movie to me, it was a suspense movie with some action shots, it didn't even have the same amount of action as a "Bourne Identity" type movie - there was some bad acting, too much talking (in case you missed that, there is a LOT of talking), very little in the way of thrills, too much focus on M, too many closeups, some amazing scenery, and Daniel Craig struggling to make it through. He tried, but I think it was very average. Next week I will have forgotten all about it. Heck, by tomorrow morning I will have forgotten about it. JB deserves better.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

Rob_ApplesNov 14, 2012

James Bond is back. Again. And to be quite frank I'm over it. 23 movies and we still see Bond doing his archetype Bond things. Oh look he ordered a martini. Hey look he's driving an Aston Martin. Is that a Walther PPK? He gambles. He wins. HeJames Bond is back. Again. And to be quite frank I'm over it. 23 movies and we still see Bond doing his archetype Bond things. Oh look he ordered a martini. Hey look he's driving an Aston Martin. Is that a Walther PPK? He gambles. He wins. He gets a typical Bond girl. Car chases, Foot chases. I mean for me it's all just been done before. It was really cool to see Bond reinvented in Casino Royal, but does every movie have to be the same formula? The only thing that set this one apart was the baddy. Javier Bardem practically single handedly saves this film from going into the annals of Bond failures such as Tomorrow Never Dies. Is it worth the watch? Yeah sure. Watch it for the action. But for old school Bond fans, I think I like my movies with a bit more Connery swagger. This one was shaken. Not stirred.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

GregRobinson800Nov 14, 2012

I wouldnt say it was the best Bond movie, however it is worth watching. I do hate when the audience is taken advantage of. Let me explain.. opening sequence is seriously flawed, and full of holes (including Bond!) However they writer/directerI wouldnt say it was the best Bond movie, however it is worth watching. I do hate when the audience is taken advantage of. Let me explain.. opening sequence is seriously flawed, and full of holes (including Bond!) However they writer/directer really made the ending quite obvious, and somewhat predictable. There are many positives however, Javier Bardem was quite good, and very unlikeable (clearly as most villains should be) I was let down however by the pace of the film. Quite long, and at times quiet and boring. Dame Denche is great as usual. Some complain about the re-introduction of the traditional bond elements.. as this was clearly and anniversary film, I think its quite appropriate... however, lets hope that's where it stops. Decent movie all around, but just not great.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

FrankCassioDec 20, 2012

For all the money they had to make this film they should have done better. Daniel Craig lacks any style or depth and comes across as low IQ which I sure is not the intent. The start is very very good but then it gets lost. the raid on theFor all the money they had to make this film they should have done better. Daniel Craig lacks any style or depth and comes across as low IQ which I sure is not the intent. The start is very very good but then it gets lost. the raid on the house is so unreal its sad. sure its entertaining but at that budget - we deserve more.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

Mr_MuumiFeb 18, 2013

You have to review the Bond movies within their context. As such, Skyfall is by means not bad one. There is something new and something familiar to keep both old and new fans watching. When you are going to see a any James Bond movie youYou have to review the Bond movies within their context. As such, Skyfall is by means not bad one. There is something new and something familiar to keep both old and new fans watching. When you are going to see a any James Bond movie you pretty much know what to expect and Skyfall delivers exactly this.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

6

ExKingMay 19, 2013

skyfall makes a good impression as a James bond movie it has all the qualities of being a good movie you have the picture the lightening the costumes and the fact that it is not memorable.
the first thing you notice about it is the goodskyfall makes a good impression as a James bond movie it has all the qualities of being a good movie you have the picture the lightening the costumes and the fact that it is not memorable.
the first thing you notice about it is the good music from the start to the end and second thing is the great action car chasing ect.....
it's basically an entertainment for 2 hours and one of the best in the series.
however there have to be a negative side which is the advertisement let me guess watches cars and suites and i actually lost tracks of how many times they did this but overall great movie.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

6

MATMAug 22, 2021

“Skyfall” is one of the better Bond movies? Yes, that is a question mark. I hated this movie. Watching people have ear piece conversations does not ramp up the tension of a scene, it just sucks all the personality out of the conflict.“Skyfall” is one of the better Bond movies? Yes, that is a question mark. I hated this movie. Watching people have ear piece conversations does not ramp up the tension of a scene, it just sucks all the personality out of the conflict. Seriously, the plot made no sense. The only reason I am giving it a passing grade is because it was competently shot to where I didn't feel like I was watching one big CGI fest. I give it a C, if you've already seen the best, but you insist on watching a movie, try this one out.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

GamingGuru365Jun 1, 2013

Skyfall is a long, tedious, and extremely boring movie that has little to no emotional impact on the viewer. It didn't linger with me after I watched it because the whole thing just felt like a massive cliche. The only things that saved thisSkyfall is a long, tedious, and extremely boring movie that has little to no emotional impact on the viewer. It didn't linger with me after I watched it because the whole thing just felt like a massive cliche. The only things that saved this movie were the action sequences and the grounds keeper who helped out Bond more than Bond helped himself. Also, he was probably the only likable person in the whole movie. Seriously, why is Bond the least interesting person in the film? How did the writers even manage to do that in a JAMES BOND movie?They even managed to make Javier Bardem (who was an excellent villain in No Country for Old Men) into a lame attempt at ripping of Joker!
It may seem like I hate this movie, but I actually thought it was not a terrible movie. It's a solid action flick if you turn your brain off. But, it's nothing more than that. People who say that this is the best Bond ever need to see a proctologist and get their head removed from their own a--.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

gracjanskiOct 1, 2021

Som characters were annoying. Judi Dench is ugly as always, Eve is like wonder woman in the beginning, so the feminism is obvious. I didnt like Javier Bardem also, he is a typical villain you ve seen so many times already. And the news Q isSom characters were annoying. Judi Dench is ugly as always, Eve is like wonder woman in the beginning, so the feminism is obvious. I didnt like Javier Bardem also, he is a typical villain you ve seen so many times already. And the news Q is an arrogant kid...
But there are some things I liked: The action is not so much over the top. Daniel Craig is great like always and Judi Dench is finally gone.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Deadly_TravelerNov 7, 2015

Well, in 2015 this web-site told me that this movie is 'new or notable' so I decided to write a review. It's not good. There're so many movies about 007 (LOTS) that I'd rather call it cliche than something new. Not good at all.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

TheKanatorFeb 16, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfall gets an above average rating for me.
It's major positives are the technical direction and the presentation. Director Sam Mendes creates many visually interesting shots in this movie. He is great at creating vibrant backdrops to the scenes like in one fight by a window where a times square style light up billboard creates a soft blue backdrop to the scene, or at the end of the film where they are fighting in the bright glow of a fire. The action in this movie is superb and the choreography feels real and thrilling. However once we get past the admittedly amazing presentation the movie starts to fall apart.
A major sub-plot of the movie is that Bond is falling apart after years of service and fails all the tests M16 gives to him. However this really doesn't go anywhere as the only time he every shows any weakness is when he misses a shot to hit a glass off of the top of the head of a hostage. Seriously. Both M and the main villain Silva talk about Bond's failings but 007 still effortlessly disposes of any opponent he goes after most of the time. The movie tries to give other characterization too but it comes off as flat and uninteresting and serves to make Bond look worse as a character (which Hint: he didn't really have a character beforehand). Look Bind is a cool secret agent that acts all high and mighty and beats people up and has a license to kill. He is not some complicated character so don't try to halfheartedly make him one.
Another major character problem is that the main villain Raoul Silva is not an intimidating villain. Whenever I was watching him be on screen it shattered my suspension of disbelief because he just screamed "WE SCREENWRITERS ARE TRYING TO MAKE A COOL VILLAIN BUT DON'T KNOW HOW!" The movie does so many things to make Silva appear intimidating and evil but it comes off as shallow and boring. And also he is the cause of some of the stupidest plot holes this side of being able to blow up AT-ATs with blasters.
Okay so the plot of the movie doesn't really hold up. In the opening sequence Bond is shot and is presumed dead in a mission but he just appears in a Latin American country later on. This isn't really explained and doesn't make any sense. Like, he was shot in the middle east I think how'd he get to south america? But whatever he comes back to London after MI6 is hacked and their building explodes. Bond goes to track the agent down, kills him, meets his associate who leads him to Silva. Bond captures Silva and brings him back to the MI6's secret underground back-up base. Then the stupidest thing ever happens. It's revealed that Silva's plan was to be captured and then escape. Which is so contrived because it's obvious they';re just copying dark knight and Silva has no reason t want to go to MI6 and then escape. Like,there is no reason to go to the HQ other than it's cool for the plot. Also, the escape plan hinges on the fact that Q will connect silva's computer to the MI6 base's computers. Which is dumb. If you're going through a hacker's computer why would you plug it in to your network? What if he just had a virus that would have wrecked the computers? Anyway Silva escapes through a train maintenance tunnel and Bond catches up but Silva manages to escape because he has a bomb planted that leads a train to fall on top of Bond. Which is stupid! How'd he know that he would be caught up to in that particular place. And if he did it just to put a wall between him anyone behind him, why didn't he blow it directly after he passed the bomb? It's another stupid plot contrivance. Then SIlva manages to invade a government hearing with just 3 guys against dozens of armed guards and tries to kill M. Luckily Bond saves the day and SIlva has to run away. The Bond takes M to his childhood mansion in Scottland. Also they took the crazy machine gun ejector seat car. There they fortify the house with only 2 hunting rifles and some TNT. With this they successfully defend themselves against a dozen of Silva's men with assault rifles. HOW?!?! And why is the groundskeeper their so good at killing trained mercenaries? It's all so CONTRIVED!! I did like it though when the groundskeeper killed a guy and aid "welcome to Scotland." Then a helicopter crashes into the house and, wait. Did i tell you? They had a helicopter with a Gatling gun and couldn't take out two old people and one agent that supposedly failed all the tests. Then Bond kills everyone but Silva, and M runs away with the groundskeeper to an old church that is apparently just 5 minutes away, I guess. Silva comes in and then puts a gun in M's hands and forces it to her head and then puts his head next to M's so that if M pulls the trigger she'll kill them both. WTF?! First off, why did he give M the ability to pull the trigger, secondly why is he suicidal all of a sudden. But then Bond kills him but M dies of a gun wound anyway.

While Skyfall has great action and presentation the plot is horrible and paces very slowly. 6/10… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

BradleyJordanAug 2, 2018

Good action film and entertaining. Some of the action scenes were a bit over the top. More character development would have added some depth to this movie.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

BHBarryDec 22, 2012

"Skyfall", the latest entry into the long line of 007 thrillers is a disappointment to not only Bond fans but moviegoers in general. Directed by Sam Mendes the film stars Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem and Naomi Harris in this dark,"Skyfall", the latest entry into the long line of 007 thrillers is a disappointment to not only Bond fans but moviegoers in general. Directed by Sam Mendes the film stars Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem and Naomi Harris in this dark, ill conceived and frankly, but for extraordinary special effects, boring film. To paraphrase Lloyd Benson in his famous admonition of Dan Quayle, "Mr. Craig, I've seen Sean Connery as Bond and you're no Sean Connery". Ian Fleming's concept of a spy with a flair for the playful, humorous and witty engagements as he saves the world from various evils is the thing the writers of this latest film fail to get or understand. The film as a screenplay, is neither plausible in its plot scenes nor is it clever in its execution. The Harry Saltzman/Albert Broccoli formula these two geniuses developed over the years and throughout the history of this epic franchise are lost in this movie and the casting of Mr. Craig still continues to amaze me. As fine an actor as he is, Mr. Craig just doesn't fit the mold that Messrs. Connery, Moore and Brosnahan were able to cast. This is a problem which frequently arises when an actor and the character they portray in sequel after sequel become so embedded in the minds of the audience that to separate one often harms the other. Basil Rathbone will always be the real Sherlock Holmes, George Sanders will always be the real Falcon (even tho his brother, Tom Conway, tried to fill his shoes) and, alas for Mr. Craig and the owners of the franchise, the same fate seems to be befalling them as well. I give the film a 5.0 rating for its special effects and the chance to hear Adele sing the background song. Beyond that it seems that more than the "sky" fell in the ratings for this film.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

A7sus4Nov 12, 2012

This is not a James Bond movie. There is no intrigue or mystery whatsoever, very minimal globe trotting, no worthwhile woman character, flimsy plot, and really no James Bond - just a grumpy old dude. Halfway through the weakly conceivedThis is not a James Bond movie. There is no intrigue or mystery whatsoever, very minimal globe trotting, no worthwhile woman character, flimsy plot, and really no James Bond - just a grumpy old dude. Halfway through the weakly conceived story the driving subject is largely abandoned to go all emotional with little to no effect. The villain sparks interest but is ultimately pedestrian as his scheme is underdeveloped and ridiculously minor. No, this is not "the best Bond ever," it's merely a failed attempt at using the modern "emotional superhero" template, which sometime works (See The Dark Knight) and sometimes fails miserably (See Superman Returns).… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

nauticoNov 11, 2012

This is precisely the kind of flick that reveals the disconnect that often exists between professional reviewers and we movie goers. What are the reasons for that? Perhaps the principle reason is that, while most patrons simply want to beThis is precisely the kind of flick that reveals the disconnect that often exists between professional reviewers and we movie goers. What are the reasons for that? Perhaps the principle reason is that, while most patrons simply want to be entertained, reviewers are forever in search of art, of layers of meaning, of reasons to credit the director for innovation or whatever, I went into Skyfall with an open mind, hoping the sterling reviews were on target, It didn't take long for the disappointment to kick in. Daniel Craig is competent, but he lacks the panache that made his predecessors so much more fun.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

NoBSNov 13, 2012

Unsatisfactory and underwhelming. sadasdasdasdsadasdsadasafasfsdafsaasssdgsdsdgaasdfsdafdasfsadfasdfsadfsafasdfasdfasasfafafassadasdfsadsadfdaasfaafas

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

kensterNov 10, 2012

International locations: Check.
Daniel Craig shirtless: Check.
Nice looking cars: Check.
Nice looking ladies: Check.
Motorcycle chase: Check.
Bulldozer crushing cars atop a speeding train: Check.
Originality and inspiration: Still looking.

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

NimzabaatNov 22, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfall starts off with a great set piece and carries on a very "Bond" feel right up until the third act. Then everything falls apart. The third act is basically a western and reinforces every negative thing said about Bond during the movie. Daniel Craig as Bond is as good as ever but...

**SPOILER ALERT***

... he loses. This is the first Bond movie where the villain succeeds at everything he set out to do. Bond loses and there are no repercussions, the end. That third act and ending alone make this the worst Bond movie i've ever seen (Moonraker was considered to be good at the time).… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

LightlySaltedFeb 15, 2013

This isn't the worst James Bond movie, but it certainly is NOT the best. As someone who's seen almost all of the Bond movies, I can tell you this movie does not live up to the name. James Bond is a secret agent SECRET as in unknown yetThis isn't the worst James Bond movie, but it certainly is NOT the best. As someone who's seen almost all of the Bond movies, I can tell you this movie does not live up to the name. James Bond is a secret agent SECRET as in unknown yet everyone knows who he is. MI6 is the last to know about every detail rather than the first, which is pretty bad for an intelligence agency. And the plot of Skyfall is about petty revenge. Rather than being a character who is used to saving the world, James Bond ends up playing a body guard. Yes plots and characters can change from film to film, but they threw out the entire recipe. The film may not have been a bad movie, but it was not a James Bond film.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

ziff70Nov 10, 2012

Unfortunately, not a great Bond film. Too long, too slow, with a plot that's mediocre at best. It seems
they tried to harkin back to classic Bond films in style, but the fact is a lot of those don't play so well for an audience in 2012.Unfortunately, not a great Bond film. Too long, too slow, with a plot that's mediocre at best. It seems
they tried to harkin back to classic Bond films in style, but the fact is a lot of those don't play so well for an audience in 2012. Time to update the classic feel and get with the times.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

5

NedRyerson1Jan 24, 2013

Skyfall is the last movie of the James Bond saga and it was surprising, because after Quantum of Solace was impossible to expect more, although is not better than Casino Royale. The plot is very similar to other films, lots of action, fightsSkyfall is the last movie of the James Bond saga and it was surprising, because after Quantum of Solace was impossible to expect more, although is not better than Casino Royale. The plot is very similar to other films, lots of action, fights and explosions, an unbeatable agent, a cool boss, the beautiful girl and the eccentric villain. This story only provides three interesting things; first the idea of the old dogs who are pull off the system by the technology and the modern times, which are Bond and M; second the dialogue about the rats that Silva tells 007, which is a metaphor for people who the society does not want; and third the Skyfall theme of Adele. Besides that, the plot is very unoriginal, the intro was not up to the Bond franchise and the look of Javier Bardem was ridiculous. The problem of this picture is that maybe we had enough of Bond and all the fights and explosions cannot fulfill a story. People need more than that these days.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

csw12Nov 25, 2012

Something didn't seem right with this bond. There were lots of very quiet areas and there weren't those scenes that you say to yourself that is insane. That is what makes bond interesting. It just seemed like a typical action film.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

seancriswellNov 27, 2012

Another mixed bag Bond film. Plenty of the typical action and tropes throughout, including of course the Bond girls. I love the stripped down version we have of Bond now, and there are a couple of humorous moments to highlight these changes.Another mixed bag Bond film. Plenty of the typical action and tropes throughout, including of course the Bond girls. I love the stripped down version we have of Bond now, and there are a couple of humorous moments to highlight these changes. I enjoyed Bardem's villain for the most part although I do feel like the praise is a little overstated, there were times when he didn't have a lot going on and others when what he was doing was more than a little confusing. One of the most disappointing things about this movie was Bond's back story, or lack there of. I love a film with a good, dark back story and while I appreciate the effort here in that regard it falls well short of the mark giving us very little actual story in that regard. Overall this Bond falls short of the other Craig films for me, but ranks better than the last few Brosnan films.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

NikolayGNov 5, 2015

Casino Royale is my favorite James Bond film. I place From Russia With Love in second place. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

Skyfall disappointed me. The biggest reason for this is that the bad guy's motivation just didn't makeCasino Royale is my favorite James Bond film. I place From Russia With Love in second place. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

Skyfall disappointed me. The biggest reason for this is that the bad guy's motivation just didn't make much sense at all. It was the opposite of the motivation in the precise and focused plot of Casino Royale. Then there were the little moments that soured me on it. Here's a few, without giving spoilers of any significance. Bond is after a bad guy. Just before he attacks the bad guy, the bad guy shoots someone. Bond could have stopped him, but didn't. Bond stands by without a care in the world as the man commits murder. And the moment after that, Bond goes after the guy. It makes no sense. He would have attacked just before. He may not be a saint but Bond as Craig has defined him (until that moment) wouldn't let an innocent person be killed that way. Next thing. Bond tells a woman he's going to rescue her from being a sex slave (forced prostitute) if she helps him with his mission. When he shows up at her place, she's in the shower. She doesn't see him. He gets naked and surprises her in the shower - they presumably have sex. This is a woman he's had exactly one conversation with in a public place. So let's recap that logic. He's going to rescue her from sexual slavery but first he pops in naked for a quickie. Anyone other than me disturbed by that? It's freaking creepy as he!!. This isn't some Bond girl he's flirted with. This is a chronic victim of rape. OK. Next thing. In one scenes he's capture but he brings in the cavalry by virtue of a hidden radio transponder in his jacket transmitting his location. Really? Couldn't he have done this with an iPhone? The radio transponder is one of Q's special gadgets, as if we live in the year 1962. It's ridiculous. And why wasn't he searched when he was captured? It would have been found. So disappointing.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

dysonluNov 11, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. They had four years to write a good (if not brilliant) story but they failed miserably! The "pre-theme song" part was pretty good and promising but then it was disappointments one after another. Right after the theme song, you learn, which was a bit of a shock, that Bond is alive and well (was rescued by a hot unknown woman, had sex with her and decided to report back for duty). What a wasted opportunity for some good "come back" story. But no. He lost his aim (which he magically, all of a suddenly, finds back at some point during the movie) and was somewhat out of shape. But nothing of that will lead to any consequence whatsoever in the story. Essentially zero character development (the bad guy "Silver" (lame name) and the Bond girl -- which lady was the Bond girl anyway? What was her name again? Actually, there is NO Bond girl in this James Bond movie). So uninspired, no flair, no style, no class. No memorable location (Shanghai, Macau, oh sooo original!) No witty retort or remark by Bond, nor interesting dialog between any character of the movie. Oh and the bad guy dies with a knife in the back, presumably thrown by Bond. No fight, no nothing.

Note to hollywood: we have enough of the evil genius hacker who can control everything and do everything with his computer. It's just a lazy way to avoid explaining anything. He knows where this person is because he hacked into this computer. He controls that house's refrigerator because he hacked into this person's computer. PLEASE STOP THIS NON-SENSE!… Expand

7 of 13 users found this helpful76

All this user's reviews

5

analogkid280Nov 12, 2012

I have to say I agree with the positive reviews and the negative reviews too. It is a good movie as long as you do not think too much about what you are watching. You also need to ignore all the commercials during the film. You need toI have to say I agree with the positive reviews and the negative reviews too. It is a good movie as long as you do not think too much about what you are watching. You also need to ignore all the commercials during the film. You need to disregard the plot devices that are inconsistent writing. Did they say uranium? Never mind you are going to watch this movie anyway just enjoy it and expect to take a nap for the last half hour of this 2 and a half hour long movie.… Expand

15 of 26 users found this helpful1511

All this user's reviews

5

revilloNov 9, 2012

What are movie critics even for these days? This movie was about as good as Prometheus, one decent actor, some nifty special effects, and a total failure of the written word...

11 of 22 users found this helpful1111

All this user's reviews

5

DoctorFoxhoundNov 16, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Overall, Skyfall was enjoyable, visually stunning at times, and Daniel Craig continues to be a top-notch Bond. All of that being said, I was a little let down plot wise. I really, really liked Javier Bardem's character but was constantly disappointed with how the script played out his actions. He's a supposed cyber genius, and his mastermind plot was (at one point) to enter a major courthouse dressed as a cop and shoot it up with a glock and two goons? Also, I loved the idea of his character revealing 5 new agents a week (similar to the Joker's plan in the Dark Knight when he killed someone every day) but this part of the story was dropped completely! By the end, the townhouse "Homealone-esch" showdown really seemed forced to me. I like the idea of disarming Bond and leaving him with only a knife, a pistol, and his creativity but I really didn't understand why they couldn't at least call in for some undercover backup at the farmhouse and overall it just seemed like a pretty sketchy plan considering it was crafted by the head of M16 and one of her best agents...I went into this movie just wanting to enjoy a good Bond flick and ultimately I would say I did but throughout I was scratching my head at some of the plot choice and by the end couldn't help but feel a little letdown.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

mrbofusNov 9, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Based on reviews, I thought this movie would impress me and knock my socks off; and perhaps I walked in expecting too much, but I walked out thinking, "meh."

It wasn't a terrible movie, but I don't understand why everyone is saying it's so great.

There were way too many plot holes that took me out of the movie. The biggest one that ran throughout the movie was, "Why didn't Silva just kidnap M?" At the end of the movie, it turns out his plans was to kill M but also himself. Why did he go through all the effort of the entire movie when he could have just kidnapped M to begin with? He clearly had the knowledge, skills, and resources to do so. His whole reason for doing anything was because he had M (mommy) issues.

His entire "plan" hinged on Bond wanting to get captured by him and then Bond taking him prisoner. And why would Bond want to be captured in that way anyways? Wouldn't it make more sense to take Severine, give her protective custody and interrogate her? She knew where Silva was and appeared ready and willing to give Bond that knowledge anyways. They could have found the location that way, and then sent in the commandos. The second part of his "plan" was getting captured and then escaping. Why go through all that? Just attack the hearing that he knew M was going to be in anyways, without having to deal with planning an incredibly elaborate escape. Or, back to the big issue, just kidnap her. *side note: it is clearly established that Bond is chasing Silva through rush-hour crowds, yet the train that crashes through the ceiling and almost hits Bond is empty except for the driver. Where did all the people go?*

And about his escape. The second biggest problem for me. Q, this genius technology guy, plugs in Silva's computer, who has already been acknowledged as a master hacker, straight into MI6's network?!? Seriously?! Wouldn't you try to get what's on the computer without connecting it to a network? Or if you had to connect it to a network, connect it to an isolated one? If guys like Q are in charge of computer stuff at MI6, no wonder they got so easily hacked.

Skyfall. James Bond had super rich parents. Great. Their death messed him up. Great. He doesn't like talking about it. Great. But that's as far as we go. But fine, let's say we're not going to delve into that. At Skyfall, after M and Kincade escape, why are they using the flashlight? I can get Kincade maybe not thinking of that, but M, who leads a spy organization doesn't think about how a flashlight could give away their position at night?

Anyways, those are just the big ones that stick out in my head. Those took me out of the movie and made me just wonder, "what the heck are these people doing?!" throughout most of the movie.… Expand

15 of 28 users found this helpful1513

All this user's reviews

5

FireOccatorJul 16, 2016

Everything in this movie is mediocre. The soundtrack goes unnoticed. The villain is a boring, try hard, drama queen. Bond spends some time of the movie doing 007 stuff and then spends some time not caring. The storyline is filled with plotEverything in this movie is mediocre. The soundtrack goes unnoticed. The villain is a boring, try hard, drama queen. Bond spends some time of the movie doing 007 stuff and then spends some time not caring. The storyline is filled with plot holes and people even forget what started the main plot in the first place. One of the action scenes is filmed in the dark and probably done by stunt doubles.… Expand

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

All this user's reviews

5

screenplayhouseNov 12, 2012

The hype on this Bond is embarrassing. I'm all about a more serious Bond with Sam Mendes at the helm. What I wanted was a clever spy story. What we instead get is a rehashing of great moments from other movies.

As to not spoil, the listThe hype on this Bond is embarrassing. I'm all about a more serious Bond with Sam Mendes at the helm. What I wanted was a clever spy story. What we instead get is a rehashing of great moments from other movies.

As to not spoil, the list of stolen ideas from better movies include: LIVE AND LET DIE, BATMAN, THE UNTOUCHABLES, and the painfully obvious SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Now I know why Sam Mendes has been unable to prosper without Bond. Apparently he's a hack.

As much as I like the actor who played the villain, he reminded me too closely in appearance and performance of Christopher Walken's disastrous A VIEW TO A KILL villain. Laughing and smirking in a little world the rest of us neither understand or give a crepe about. In this film I didn't care the villain, Bond, or the 'dramatic' event at movies end -- which wasn't set up by professional filmmakers but Comic book fanboys. And the oh so precious introduction of a Bond institution at movie's end was another 'precious' fanboy moment played terribly wrong.

Where the Bond girl? The same place this script was. Up someone's arrogant myopic behind.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

caldepenNov 13, 2012

Good movie, just not a good Bond movie. The main protagonist (Bond) and antagonist (Silva/Bardem) are underwhelming. I want Bond to be a hero, not a drunken bum (who can oddly survive a crazy high fall into a creek) and I want Bond villain toGood movie, just not a good Bond movie. The main protagonist (Bond) and antagonist (Silva/Bardem) are underwhelming. I want Bond to be a hero, not a drunken bum (who can oddly survive a crazy high fall into a creek) and I want Bond villain to aspire to more than just silly revenge. It is however very well shot. This falls short of Bourne for me.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

sky_has_fallenNov 23, 2012

Bond has been hit by a fallen meteor. Disappointing for a Bond film- strained and very unrealistic plot with another crazed unbelievable villain, But good on-location photography.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

mansellNov 30, 2012

Disappointing. Loved Casino Royale 's realism, but this was like watching a Batman movie with an arch villain and bumbling Secret Service except for Bond.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

madeleineJan 11, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Some great action scenes are the only distinguishing feature. Otherwise, far too much product placement and a plot which revises GoldenEye with its agent turned villain after harsh treatment by his spymasters (Bardem phones in his performance and counts the cash, and good luck to him). The whole thing could have been rescued for me if Silva had killed M and himself in the chapel, with Bond arriving just in time to witness it. Now that would have been a movie!… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

NathonasDec 6, 2015

The film starts out with a lot of promise but quickly goes downhill once the villain is introduced. The end sequence in particular makes zero sense and feels completely out of place.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

MadMaxFuryRoadNov 8, 2015

Not the best James Bond film, but with a great first 30 minutes, it delivers. I've actually seen this before Spectre, though I put my review later. I loved Spectre, and I thought this one was a little more boring, but still fun. The actionNot the best James Bond film, but with a great first 30 minutes, it delivers. I've actually seen this before Spectre, though I put my review later. I loved Spectre, and I thought this one was a little more boring, but still fun. The action sequences are the same as before, but the first 30 minutes is what the movie should have been like. Also, the ending was fine, just too long.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

i2k-Meta2023Jun 1, 2023

Sadly doesn't good as Casino Royale - Decent, watchable, bearable... these words was floating in my mind while watching to the end.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

nmaxw63Dec 20, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Great action sequences. The first 10-15 minutes was fantastic.
However...
The whole basis of this silly movie is that the villain has created an elaborate plot which unfolds over years so he can get captured and taken into MI HQ. why does he want to get taken there? So he can escape and kill M, who is outside HQ. Huh?… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

4

norseNov 16, 2012

Hm. Skyfall was not a bad bond movie, but it only came close to being decent one. Overall, the pacing was off - each scene could have benefited from being cut by 10% on average. The only appearance that was way too brief was the Bond girl,Hm. Skyfall was not a bad bond movie, but it only came close to being decent one. Overall, the pacing was off - each scene could have benefited from being cut by 10% on average. The only appearance that was way too brief was the Bond girl, who stopped showing up abruptly and early. The story has some horrible holes on the "what computers can do" front, and some hints are being dropped all too forcefully (especially at the end). The music wasn't particularly compelling and occasionally didn't fit the action on screen. On the other hand, the main actors did an impeccable job - Craig and Dench are my all-time favorites. In addition, the villain in this movie had actual real character, a really impressive achievement. This could have been a great movie to rival the Casion Royale (my 10/10 standard for awesome and impressive Bond movies), but fell short. Maybe we'll see a recut one day.… Expand

8 of 12 users found this helpful84

All this user's reviews

4

hoppimikeFeb 6, 2013

Like many, I am in disbelief at the popularity of Skyfall. I found it simplistic, dull, sloppy and "cheap". Only the first 45 minutes I enjoyed really, and even then I didn't find it a patch on other more modern Bond movies like Casino,Like many, I am in disbelief at the popularity of Skyfall. I found it simplistic, dull, sloppy and "cheap". Only the first 45 minutes I enjoyed really, and even then I didn't find it a patch on other more modern Bond movies like Casino, Quantum or GoldenEye.

Clearly many people liked it, but it is most certainly not for me.… Expand

7 of 10 users found this helpful73

All this user's reviews

4

RenzomaloSep 24, 2013

The Mrs. and I sat down last night to watch James Bond’s “Skyfall” and fell asleep after an admittedly hilarious opening of nonsensical improbabilities and physical impossibilities. James Bond a heavy equipment operator on a moving train?The Mrs. and I sat down last night to watch James Bond’s “Skyfall” and fell asleep after an admittedly hilarious opening of nonsensical improbabilities and physical impossibilities. James Bond a heavy equipment operator on a moving train? Funny stuff! Then I nodded off and woke up in time to hear the requisite “Bond, James Bond.” and then went back to sleep. Turns out (spoiler alert) that Mr. Bond is capable of defeating an entire platoon of highly trained, special-forces bad guys. Who knew? Of course, being immune to bullet wounds, oxygen deprivation, hypothermia and Newtonian Physics helps, but still… Looked good if you promise not to think or bring even a modicum of life experience to the viewing. Seriously, a must see for Bond fans plenty of early Bond references but for the rest of us, watch the trailer and call it a night. No stars from this old codger because I slept through most of it.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

4

jamesensorApr 21, 2013

Just boring, I slept through some parts of the movie. Bond almost rarely talks, there are events which look so forced to justify the plot's directions (this is the worst in the movie, the way some events take place... omg...), Moneypenny isJust boring, I slept through some parts of the movie. Bond almost rarely talks, there are events which look so forced to justify the plot's directions (this is the worst in the movie, the way some events take place... omg...), Moneypenny is introduced as a "creative" mark, M is since her inception, an awful character that goes worse, Q is another "creative" decision (creative is let's make it easy for us and make the public believe it's cool and innovation). Lots of cloaked advertising, more nonsense plot decisions, forced again and again, that didn't made any sense. In conclusion: the movie is an action flick which tells you to believe a good Bond movie is what they produce, with explosions, gfx, low intelligence plot, meat for the grinder. I'm glad I didn't fall for the "awesome MUST see" advertising kind of marketing campaign. Neither for the forum shills which almost crucify us if we don't share 10/10 impressions. I really enjoyed the first Craig Bond movie, but watching him and Conan the Barbarian movies just fighting and fighting, is the same...… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

4

franco214Nov 13, 2012

I love Daniel Craig as Bond, I have enjoyed enormously the last two Bond films he has been in but the latest installment, Skyfall, left me feeling extremely disapointed. I came out of the cinema feeling like this was directed by someone whoI love Daniel Craig as Bond, I have enjoyed enormously the last two Bond films he has been in but the latest installment, Skyfall, left me feeling extremely disapointed. I came out of the cinema feeling like this was directed by someone who was trying to hard to make this 'more' than the other Bond films and by doing so has taken away the essence of what makes Bond, Bond. If you are looking for an action packed, fun, exciting film then this is seriously going to dissapoint you...have you ever known Bond go and hide...well it happens in this film. More annoyingly than the lack of action is that when we do get it, it is shot in such a way that you have no idea who is who until one of the characters dies.."oh so the other person is Bond then". And to top it off there is a villan who looks like David Walliams in a blonde wig. As soon as i saw the baddy i had this picture in my head and spent the rest of the film wondering if Matt Lucas was going to give a cameo in a red spandex unitard?

Be careful about the hype of this film, you may come away extremely dissapointed.… Expand

6 of 8 users found this helpful62

All this user's reviews

4

On2wheelsNov 19, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. One of the worst Bond imho. Most of my reasons are:

Main villains in Bond movies have crazy world crushing plots with machines of massive power and destruction, not a hacker in a room full of servers. QoS for example: controlling a water supply, brilliant! not some hacker scheme, Anonymous is already doing that.

You don't go blowing up a vintage Bond car for the fun of it. Watch the opening car chase of QoS and tell me it's not awesome. Even the rooftop bike chase was a ripoff of the rooftop running chase from QoS.

A huge stone house in Ireland doesn't blow up and burn like it's full of gasoline and made of dry timber.

Javier Bardem should not have been the villain, it should have been a lesser known actor, and his opening rant was far too wordy and childish.

The new Q was a joke, most of his on screen time was blundering around with his giant screen contributing nothing to Bond's journey.

So many predictable plot turns and scenes, I almost forgot it was a Bond flick.

I walked into that theater with such high hopes and walked out shaking my head saying "what were they thinking when they made this".

Now reading comments on Twitter and the 007 facebook page, people just wearing rose coloured glasses cause it's "Bond" and we're told to like that guy.

I believe it's a sad turn for the franchise.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

Dante11Dec 4, 2012

Ill be quick and simple!!Critics are easy to buy apparently,biggest letdown of the year....Didnt care for anybody during the whole movie.To much plot holes and the writing was awful with some of the stupidest and anti-climatic quotesIll be quick and simple!!Critics are easy to buy apparently,biggest letdown of the year....Didnt care for anybody during the whole movie.To much plot holes and the writing was awful with some of the stupidest and anti-climatic quotes ever!!Worse Bond movie in Craig legacy...I rly dont understand the good reviews ,they made me watch the movie twice and found twice as many holes and negative things about it!!!I know it was Bond anniversary but the movie sucked either way!!… Expand

7 of 11 users found this helpful74

All this user's reviews

4

clasher101Jan 3, 2013

tedious and really nothing new to see here except bardem and craigs great performances. action scenes are nothing special and the story drags down to a stop at times. do not believe the hype folks.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

4

mrmonsterApr 2, 2013

A few okay action scenes, but mostly a long, boring movie with no real point. I wouldn't recommend it. It might be okay for a few loyal bond fans, but if you aren't a James Bond superfan, you probably won't like it.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

JamesCannonNov 11, 2012

rather mundane action movie, not sure why this had so many glowing reviews. I loss attention through most of the action sequences cause they just didnt have that punch to them that casino royale had, which is a far superior film than thisrather mundane action movie, not sure why this had so many glowing reviews. I loss attention through most of the action sequences cause they just didnt have that punch to them that casino royale had, which is a far superior film than this was. I miss the ol cheeky bond too, this is just way to serious and it even tries to be a little dark knightish, which it doesnt copy very well either.… Expand

6 of 7 users found this helpful61

All this user's reviews

4

TECfilmsNov 19, 2012

Hm, okay, there is something new in this Bond film, vut especially the ending sequence at "Skyfall" was unrealistic and much too similar to an average action movie. The villain seems unmotivated, certain actions are not comprehensible, andHm, okay, there is something new in this Bond film, vut especially the ending sequence at "Skyfall" was unrealistic and much too similar to an average action movie. The villain seems unmotivated, certain actions are not comprehensible, and then M's dead at the end, which destroys James' invulnerable image ... absolutely a matter of taste!… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

MrLadyRatNov 10, 2012

It's a return to the classic, campy Bond movies. I didn't know that going in, and was disappointed when walking out.

A bad script sets the movie apart from it's two predecessors. Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace had such a rich, deepIt's a return to the classic, campy Bond movies. I didn't know that going in, and was disappointed when walking out.

A bad script sets the movie apart from it's two predecessors. Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace had such a rich, deep storyline, where characters had intricacies, and separate stories of their own. Skyfall is missing this.

I love the classic Bond movies, and think that this movie is very much in line with those. With that said, my reasoning for such a harsh rating is that the previous two movies had taken Bond in such a vibrant direction, and it is so disappointing to see the series regress.… Expand

8 of 12 users found this helpful84

All this user's reviews

4

Anosh_AhmadNov 11, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. How and why did it all go wrong? An unlikely choice for a director, who could've possibly brought some very gritty drama to the age old bond-film-reciepe (opinion based on his previous work):CHECK! 2 writers who wrote the best Bond film (Casino Royale) of the past decade: CHECK! An excellent DP and Sound Designer: CHECK! A good set of actors: CHECK! Then why o why o why? I'll just chart down the obvious and the potential shortcomings of the film:
1) Bond supposedly dies / consequently not in the best shape / alcohol abuse | an immense playground for the author..not capitalized.
2) Villain possesses the resources, the schematics and the cunningness to bring Mi6 down along with his one true target (i.e: M)| resorts to attempting assassination of his one true target with a 9mm.
3) M's betrayal of undercover agents | It was so infuriating that this was not utilized to somehow have an impact on Bond's loyalty.
4) M is threatened | Bond's Master Plan: hide in a remote house and lure the villain and his plethora of gunmen so that he can take them out, personally. Oh and the house had to be the one where Bond experienced his child hood (most irritatingly irrelevant) trauma; the death of his parents! Other senseless mistakes:
4) Bond girls were neither sexy nor interesting nor devious nor anything! ( :@ major flaw).
5) One bombing at the Mi6 headquarters | Mi6 forms an underground dwelling in London...no other bases.
6) I know someone has deemed it necessary for there to be a prodigious, skinny, **** tech geek in every detective drama these days and this movie was all about removing the age old garbage (pun)...but seriously...THAT GUY...as Q? --__--
7) TOO MANY CORNY ONE LINERS!! This fact was as infuriating and saddening as it was astonishing. I mean, after the Bourne Legacy..has'nt the crime action genre in Hollywood's cinema, shifted away from the cheesy B-grade film mechanics laid in the 70's? :S

This was just some of the steam I had to let out after watching this flick today. All in all...I would just say, it had so much potential and it was all wasted.… Expand

12 of 21 users found this helpful129

All this user's reviews

4

MrHenleyNov 24, 2012

I really didn't enjoy Skyfall. Some elements were good, but I felt it was too bland. Basically Bourne but with a bit more class. Why must they cut out the cool gadgets / glamour? What drew me to Bond in the first place was the escapism andI really didn't enjoy Skyfall. Some elements were good, but I felt it was too bland. Basically Bourne but with a bit more class. Why must they cut out the cool gadgets / glamour? What drew me to Bond in the first place was the escapism and fantasy elements. This is too real world, too much like a stock standard action film.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

dickreesNov 27, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Anyone who believes this is a good Bond Movie is an Odd Job. And probably likes the musical 'We will Rock You'. Average action to open, silly effete bad guy (let's make him camp!) with lack of ambition and overbite, (didn't they used to want to take over the world?) washed down with a terrible clunky script. Why? - because it borrows so heavily from other films: Hannibal Lecter cage from Silence of the Lambs; shotguns and courduroy jackets and country from Bourne; dead parents from Harry Potter. Ridiculous dialogue: Albert Finney: "I was born ready!" - really! Silly denouement: Bardem arrives with heavies majically out of thin air and M has no security save for Bond who kills a helicopter with a calor gas cannister. No glamour, no charachter arc for sexy women - only M who completely forgets all her training and waves a bad guy in with a white hankie. No bad guy characters introduced around main Bardem charachter (no Odd Job) 'Ext. Skyfall - Night: Lots of bad guys wander down sepia tinted countryside looking for a tosser and his mum and a poacher so they can kill him. They all die in BBQ accident.'

Stupid and unsophisticated with schlocky ending that betrays Bond cool. His parents grave - and mum named Delacroix - and what -what- what! Stupid moments: Bond chasing Bardem in Z Cars outfit and crashing train pointlessly into underground. This is not a Bond Movie. It's a Blonde movie made by people with a schedule. Skyfall House - that really made me laugh... as if.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

shineonsunfishNov 29, 2012

Really disappointed. The first two movies of this rebooted franchise were both excellent. They took place during an understandable time period, with a gritty and realistic Bond who had just been promoted to 007 status. He wasn't chatty,Really disappointed. The first two movies of this rebooted franchise were both excellent. They took place during an understandable time period, with a gritty and realistic Bond who had just been promoted to 007 status. He wasn't chatty, and we didn't care - his steely gaze and quick wit (not to be mistaken for quips - just watch Casino Royale's first scene with Vesper and you'll be able to tell the difference) told us that he was a man with a past. A past that he had no interest in divulging. We were treated to beautiful women (who were given character and personality), dry martinis, perfectly fitted tuxedos, and a sinister Bilderberg type group of powerful people controlling society from within. Flash ahead to Skyfall - Bond looks a good 15 years older, and is in the middle of a random assignment that leaves no resolution to the plot of the first two films. The first two films started with bone-achingly real foot chases through exotic locales. This one had a motorbike jumping onto a moving train. The villains in the first two movies were a terrorist banker and a philanthropist with sinister goals. This one is your typical mincing crazy person with a funny accent (homophobic, xenophobic, AND quite silly all in one, not that it's the actor's fault.) The first films included several types of women (all very beautiful, this is a Bond movie after all), who had varying relationships with Bond. This one had a young 007 agent whose ineptitude at her job ends with her taking the role of a secretary, and an abused sex slave who is questionably seduced and summarily executed and treated like a piece of trash (the horrific "waste of a good scotch" quip is inexcusable). Honestly, "it's a Bond movie, what did you expect" has no place in this conversation - I expected what I was led to expect from the first two movies of the reboot. A gritty, realistic, badass James Bond. Not someone quipping or using silly gadgets or having rapey scenes with random chicks. I am not an original James Bond fan. I don't care what they did in 1962 - that image of the swinging playboy is no longer relevant to this generation. And this movie tried so hard to be relevant, with it's cheap terrorism plot. And the last 30 minutes, while they had great action sequences taken out of context, made no sense to a larger plot, and awkwardly tried to shove in a very stupid and cliched past to Bond's life. The climactic scene left me feeling nothing, because there had been no foundation laid for any emotion regarding that character. And it dragged quite a bit - there's no reason for an action movie to be more than 2 hours long.

That being said, it certainly wasn't all bad. After the initial silliness of the motorbike chase, the fight atop the train was excellent. The entire scene in Shanghai was also done very well, and the actress playing Severine did a very good job with what was ultimately a very stupid role. The lighting was quite remarkable in the whole movie, and Javier Bardem did his best to infuse a traditional silly Bond villain with some pathos. The choice to make Q young was nice (even though he was painfully stupid for being such a computer whiz), and if they hadn't hit the theme quite so hard, it would have been nice to compare the old world vs. the new world through James Bond's eyes. And the courtroom scene was very enjoyable and tense, even though it was a bit silly after all the convoluted planning from Bardem. Unfortunately, this film felt out of context with the other two, putting the time frame oddly late and seeming to be either the end of a series or the beginning of a new one. Some huge gaps of logic in the needlessly silly plot make this definitely the worst Bond movie of the three, and independent of the series it was an extremely mediocre action flick.… Expand

12 of 16 users found this helpful124

All this user's reviews

4

joie2Dec 14, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfall had some good bits, but a lot of problems. The "aging Bond" aspect of the film didn't work for me because we all know that Bond is effectively a permanently young and handsome character, thanks to the miracle of casting. Besides, it's been done before (in Never Say Never?). The scale of the movie didn't work for me either -- "Skyfall" is such a grandiose name that it should have been an international scheme, not Bond's dismal childhood manse. And the "revenge on M" motivation fell flat. Bond villains should want to take over the world, get rich, or both. I also disliked the movie's midway morph into Home Alone. How tedious. Finally, I was offended by the homophobia implicit in the depiction of the villain. What will the next Bond film bring us -- a greedy Jew?… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

KnackeringhamDec 24, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I didn't know it was a Bond film I would have enjoyed it more. There was no 'light and shade' as in previous Bond movies. It was all too dark. What happened to the suave sophistication that Bond exudes...always 100% sure of himself. There were no 'tongue in cheek' snippets that always was a sign of a good Bond film. I missed the inventive gadgets that Q would provide. It was though the writers were trying to destroy the franchise by blowing up the Aston Martin and revealing Bonds past. Why destroy the mystique of Bond? I hope they return to the old format. There will always be plenty of Bourne Identities. Sorry 5/10.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

mvh888Jan 2, 2013

After watching skyfall I felt like having worked for an enitre day, it just took far too long. It'd be better it'd be shortened by an hour. The acting wasn't bad and stuff. Actually there was nothing which was like really bad but everythingAfter watching skyfall I felt like having worked for an enitre day, it just took far too long. It'd be better it'd be shortened by an hour. The acting wasn't bad and stuff. Actually there was nothing which was like really bad but everything also was not good.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

chibistevoJul 7, 2013

All the hype, all the press, all the praise, would suggest this to be the best Bond ever. Part of me would say; that's probably not a far cry from the truth, yet, it's hardly an accolade worth boasting about either.

Throughout theAll the hype, all the press, all the praise, would suggest this to be the best Bond ever. Part of me would say; that's probably not a far cry from the truth, yet, it's hardly an accolade worth boasting about either.

Throughout the overdrawn and increasingly sigh worthy decisions made by all the characters in play, it became apparent by the end that Skyfall was at best a bloated, nonsensical bore, straining so hard for glory, that it managed to fool the majority of the audience.

Javier Bardem, despite his brilliance as Chigurgh in No Country for Old Men, is completely wasted here. And i'm not sure in which way I mean that, as he clearly looked off his rocker for the entirety of the film. Perhaps that was the point, but I would have thought the writers would have used him wisely, rather than spewing out another camp, ridiculous villain. A complete waste of opportunity and talent.

As for the plot, it struggles along from A to B, as both band and Camp Bond Villain #38 make increasingly unbelievable judgment calls. The finale is perhaps the most laughable standoff I've seen in years. Without any spoiling, Bond, with all his guile and wit, makes the decision to essentially hide in a remote, derelict building.

Well, there'll never find us here... says Bond.

It seems it's not just the audience that are all too happy to dance along to the nonsense.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

4

OzyApr 15, 2014

I liked the fact that it showed the toll bond had accumulated over the years. But I expected him to snap out of his lonely old man state of mind and kick some ass. In all honesty the movie felt like it should have instead been the firstI liked the fact that it showed the toll bond had accumulated over the years. But I expected him to snap out of his lonely old man state of mind and kick some ass. In all honesty the movie felt like it should have instead been the first 15minutes of another epic bond film.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

BarbudezNov 7, 2015

Del montón, simplemente. Tanto bombo,tanta soplagaitez, para esto. Una pelicula dirigida en plan "uh uh vamos a imitar a Nolan que esta de moda" y simplemente es eso una moda.

Me gusto bastante el rollo que se cascaron con Casino Royale,Del montón, simplemente. Tanto bombo,tanta soplagaitez, para esto. Una pelicula dirigida en plan "uh uh vamos a imitar a Nolan que esta de moda" y simplemente es eso una moda.

Me gusto bastante el rollo que se cascaron con Casino Royale, que junto con Goldeneye, es de las mejores de James Bond, darle un toque mas real y mas actual a Bond sin violar sus origenes, con Quantum por culpa de la torpeza e incompetencia del director hacen una pelicula con quizas la mejor reinterpretacion de Spectra, tirada a la basura, y viene esta Skyfall, que simplemente me parece....mediocrilla.

Spoiler:

-Primero de todo te la venden como la nueva obra maestra, la gran pelicula de Bond, simplemente porque tiene una parte, la ultima que la han hecho diferente, pero el 90% de la peli, es una peli random de Bond y no de las mejores.
-El villano Javier Bardem, algunos iluminadillos o tontopollas como se les quiera llamar han dicho que es el mejor villano de Bond,Su Joker, Su Lex Luthor.... vamos no me toqueis los cojones, si es un villano de opereta estrambotico, que tiene a M a huevo mil veces para matarla y no lo hace. Y esa ultima parte lo del "estas herida", "matemonos los 2", si tanto la odias puto gilipollas le pegas un tiro y te piras.

Estando Blofeld, Scaramanga, Dr.No, Goldfinger, Alec Trevelyan, **** Galore, este mierdecilla esta al nivel del Coreano del trasplante de ADN

-Una genialidad lo del caseron y el pasado de Bond?...Hola? alguno ha visto asalto a la comisaria del distrito 13 o Perros de paja? y ya ves tu, lo del pasado lo que dice el guardes y la tumba de sus padres....

-Lo unico que me ha llamado la atencion y salvo de la quema, es el nuevo M (Ralph Fiennes tiene potencial) y el regreso de Q

Mediocridad Sobrevalorada… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

arostislavnaOct 2, 2021

I reaaaaaallly hate how incompetent they made M (Judi) in this film's first act. She is in charge of MI6 (SIS) and does not know basic fundamentals of cyber security, and I hate the overt big tech spyware being shown in the film (CommietubeI reaaaaaallly hate how incompetent they made M (Judi) in this film's first act. She is in charge of MI6 (SIS) and does not know basic fundamentals of cyber security, and I hate the overt big tech spyware being shown in the film (Commietube and Guuuuulag)

The rest of the film is great however.… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

4

DavidHoltzerNov 9, 2021

It's a watchable movie with a very dumb plot and some other stupid stuff like when a Bond is in a remote country and there is a TV broadcasting the news in english. However there are positive things in this film too: Some action scenes areIt's a watchable movie with a very dumb plot and some other stupid stuff like when a Bond is in a remote country and there is a TV broadcasting the news in english. However there are positive things in this film too: Some action scenes are pretty good and the movie is shot well plus the special effects are nice.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

zNeverSleepingDec 28, 2019

É um bom filme para a "sessão da tarde".

Se você está procurando algo pra se entreter e apenas isso, talvez funcione. Mas ao ser um pouco mais exigente, já começa a notar coisas que comprometem e muito a obra. Primeiro ponto são osÉ um bom filme para a "sessão da tarde".

Se você está procurando algo pra se entreter e apenas isso, talvez funcione. Mas ao ser um pouco mais exigente, já começa a notar coisas que comprometem e muito a obra. Primeiro ponto são os personagens. O filme tem uma mania incrível de superestimá-los, forçando diálogos "inteligentes" e tampouco naturais, quando o mesmo a frente mostra as trapalhadas das arrogância do mesmo, o problema é que isso não me pareceu de proposito. Outro ponto que me incomodou foi a personalidade do Bond. Aqui o roteirista não parece se preocupar com a modernização - natural, diga-se de passagem; do personagem, que transmite um ar de homem com "H maiúsculo", sendo favorável a moda antiga, desde fazer a barba com a navalha ou sou um ignorante quanto o poder da tecnologia - mesmo que ela tenha sido retratada pelo personagem "Q", que apenas é inteligente quando o roteiro quer. E mesmo que se esforcem muito para passar a personalidade do Bond ao publico, não funciona, pois simplesmente é falado e não mostrado - trazendo mais uma vez um ar de artificialidade.
Fora o fato de que é impossível salvar o mundo se você não transou com ao menos duas mulheres no mesmo filme. É insano o fato de que quase toda mulher quer pegar ele. Esse filme mais parece um anime de tarado japonês do que de um filme de ação.
A mulher que lidera os 00 é super arrogante e cheia de si e suas decisões, mas o filme não se aprofunda nisso, fazendo com que esse elemento não valha nada. O vilão, como sempre, é um pedaço de saco que serve para o protagonista bater. Suas convicções são incompreensíveis e mais uma vez o personagem só é inteligente quando o roteirista quer. A atuação não convence muito, e eu nem se quer acho que o ator teria background de personagem suficiente pra isso. Como pontos positivos, temos a fotografia - sempre concisa, a trilha sonora original sendo uma das melhores do gênero, efeitos especiais.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

3

VidsRuleNov 25, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It takes 3/4 of the show to establish the main villian. That's fine. He's a mastermind, and it seems like he has some big plans. They have established the evil genius now let's move towards the soon to be world eding plan. Nope. We get a few seconds of his plan and the rest of the movie is him simply trying to kill bond and M. That's it. He follows them around trying to kill them. And to top it off, there is no genius revealed. That's it: Guy tries to kill a couple people. In the end (I checked spoilers don't forget), the bad guy dies by Bond simply throwing a knife into his back. Think about this, I don't care what the knife represents, it is simply thrown into the back of the bad guy and threat removed. There will never be another bond movie as bad as this.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

3

OverworlderMar 3, 2013

This movie deserves 2 points for the opening chase and another point for the few beautiful shots of Istanbul and Shanghai. The rest is entirely forgettable, generic action-movie nonsense. From the title alone I half-expected some big,This movie deserves 2 points for the opening chase and another point for the few beautiful shots of Istanbul and Shanghai. The rest is entirely forgettable, generic action-movie nonsense. From the title alone I half-expected some big, properly nefarious conspiracy, perhaps involving planes or space. But no, the villain is utterly uninteresting and only motivated by petty revenge. Bond himself inspires no empathy whatsoever, and displays zero emotion, charm or wit. The pacing is terrible, with some pointless scenes dragging on to the point where I started checking the clock. The plot is full of holes big enough to drive a train through. And of course there are no gadgets to speak of. Because the new Bond is all 'dark' and 'gritty' and 'real' while still managing to be a wooden puppet buffeted by meaningless explosions and fantastical computer hackery.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

3

cfscorpioNov 11, 2012

I didn't like this movie. It is little more than a straight action film. Take out the name James Bond and you'll find it hard to see the resemblance to the James Bond series. They took away all the clever gadgets, don't give Bond much time toI didn't like this movie. It is little more than a straight action film. Take out the name James Bond and you'll find it hard to see the resemblance to the James Bond series. They took away all the clever gadgets, don't give Bond much time to be cool or charming, he doesn't really play out as much of a hero and the villain has no motivation or plan other than revenge. This seems to be the direction of the Daniel Craig era of Bond movies and I for one have had enough.… Expand

6 of 10 users found this helpful64

All this user's reviews

3

evanrmNov 29, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The worst of the Daniel Craig James Bond films. The treadbare plot seems designed so specifically to kill off Judi Dench's character that I wonder if she wanted out. It could have been interesting, but it wasn't. Javier Bardem's flamboyant gay super-genius-criminal-mastermind was decidedly unrealistic in every way. The parts in all the trailers where James Bond gets shot? He comes back 5 minutes later after apparently living in some Caribbean paradise for three weeks and has lost all his skills. But don't worry, it doesn't make any difference at all. He still kills all the baddies (despite not being able to shoot accurately) and manages to hold on to an elevator that ascends a high-rise building (despite failing all his physical exams). In fact, ALL the best bits from the trailers have zero relevance to the film. The word association clip? Zero relevance. Bond's "death"? Zero relevance. "Skyfall"? Zero relevance. This sort of shoddy writing makes you wonder how easy it is to get a job in Hollywood, because clearly no skill is required. The production is obviously very expensive, and the pace slow. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it wasn't a crap film. Alas. But it doesn't end there. The name of the film: Skyfall? Sounds interesting, huh? It has absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the film (the final location is a property named "Skyfall" that apparently Bond's parents owned) which is functionally pointless other than being a cool film name. Traditionally, James Bond films have had outlandish plots: that's part of the franchise. Moonraker had a evil genius stealing satellites; Casino Royale pinned the fate of the free world on a game of Texan Hold 'em poker; GoldenEye had a space laser. Skyfall has an insipid title track by Adele, a lame villain, and a lifeless, dull plot. This was supposed to be the 50th anniversary. What an insult.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

bosnianNov 12, 2012

Story makes no sense. Enough plot holes and ridiculous moments where you are questioning what where they thinking to fill out any Roger Moore Bond movie. Series that started with amazing Casino Royale keeps going down the hill thanks to overStory makes no sense. Enough plot holes and ridiculous moments where you are questioning what where they thinking to fill out any Roger Moore Bond movie. Series that started with amazing Casino Royale keeps going down the hill thanks to over the top action sequences and no regard for coherent plot. Fails miserably in comparison to MI4.… Expand

6 of 10 users found this helpful64

All this user's reviews

3

tooplanxApr 28, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Pretty distasteful misogyny (more than simple sleeping with women- he pretends that he cares for an abused sex slave and promises to rescue her, then takes advantage of her vulnerability to have sex with her, then when he's got what he wants from her he lets her die without showing any kind of remorse or compassion).

Beyond this, the plot is boring and totally nonsensical. It is so full of plot holes, loose ends, and inconsistencies that mean you just don't care what happens and spend most of the time just thinking "Why is this happening? What's the point of this? How did he manage that? Why is he there?" etc.

Non of the main characters are likeable, in fact, I kind of feel that the 'bad guy', Silva, was actually the good guy really. You can understand and sympathise with his motives, where as Bond and M are just a-holes.

The action sequences aren't even very good. There's no tension to them, and because you don't care about any of the characters or what happens in the 'story' they just become meaningless set pieces.

To top it off, the script is quite bland, with cliches and occasional pseudo-deep phrases thrown in to annoy you. There is next to no witty dialogue or truly interesting conversations.

However, if you like to watch movies because you like moving images and the occasional explosion, you'll probably love it.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

3

DillioNov 10, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Bad movie. Hollywood must have some very efficient PR agencies which obviously now spam IMDB & metacritic way ahead of a movies release. Shortly before the movie came out in the US it already had 10000+ reviews on IMDB.

Story: 2 out of 10 - (Spoilers): Bond dies - Bond does not die - Bond is back - lot of brainless action - plot does not make sense at all. The "evil" guy is a former MI6 agent, who was betrayed and exchanged against six agents by M to the Chinese. Now he wants M dead and how does he show her what she did was wrong? He acquires a list of NATO agents working undercover and unfolds their identity (5 at a time, to make it even more mischievous) on a YouTube channel (nice product placement btw.). As if that does not make enough sense he now blows up M's office 15 years after he freed himself out of the Chinese prison and makes sure M is not in it (adds to the suspense). To spice up life besides blowing up things and hacking M's computer he manipulates the stock market and hacks into satellites. Makes sense? Yes? No! But now his evil plans for world dom... ehhm... no actually just killing M (which seems to pretty easy for this superbrainiac) will finally come true, so he gets himself arrested by the MI6 and is locked up in a airtight cell in MI6 new secret HQ somewhere below London. But of course he has already calculated all the steps MI6 will take and now from within his supersecure cell he executes his super evil plan to ESCAPE from the cell! He escapes (this is not being shown, as escaping from a airtight cell is just too easy for this guy and too hard for the ingenious director to execute) and runs through the tunnel with James Bond nearly shooting him (he has precalculated the flight of the bullets too and also exactly the location where Bond is standing as NOW he blows up a hole in the underground of London where surprise surprise a metro is just flying through and nearly missing Bond (he calculated this also, so he could have some more fun with his favourite actor / counterpart). After escaping the underground he walks straight into the parliament (precalculated too) where a trial against the somewhat evil M is being conducted. Now he thinks it is time to kill M for real, but now his calculations went wrong and Bond saves M from being shot by Mr. Evil himself. Because obviously Bond and M now cannot trust anybody besides each other anymore they drive to Scotland and to Bonds former parents house. This of course is still being inhabited by the former servant, who despites being 60+ years old still seems to be quite keen facing Mr. Evil and his minions just armed with some shotguns and some self constructed MacGywer style bombs. Of course Mr. Evil comes in the second wave after blood thirsty Bond now has killed over 15 of his minions in the first assault wave and after a long battle chases M (the new number 1 of the Bond movie) to a chapel nearby. Now finally the 100 minute benchmark is reached - Mr. Evil gets killed - M dies - Bond almost crys and dear old servant looks shocked. Movie over - done. A masterpiece? Nope. The ingredients are mainly senseless shooting - "cool" looking explosions - dark meaningless places and a story lacks any sense at all. Not to say Bond movies ever where super logical or anything, but this movie is just a complete mess. It lacks humor, a coherent story, the evil guy sucks, the Bond girls appear like 5 seconds and then they disappear if lucky or just get plain shot, Bond shows his "dark" side - taking painkillers excessively and drinking, Q hands Bond two **** things and tries to be funny about it, the locations have no charm or character, not a single character gets explained. Main thing nowadays though seems to be kill count needs to be high, actors need not to act but rather look "cool" when killing people and story needs to be not existent to not overbear the viewer.

Optics 4 out of 10 - Intro is cool, rest way too dark and superficial.

Actors 3 out of 10 - no actor strikes out, especially the evil guy sucks, but that is all based on the story.… Expand

21 of 41 users found this helpful2120

All this user's reviews

3

axelkochNov 10, 2012

You have to put feelings in a movie starring Daniel Craig (like in Casino Royale) and Skyfall doesn't do that, just like Quantum Of Solace. Thus, Quantum Of Solace is bad and thus, Skyfall is bad. Skyfall is even worse, actually it's theYou have to put feelings in a movie starring Daniel Craig (like in Casino Royale) and Skyfall doesn't do that, just like Quantum Of Solace. Thus, Quantum Of Solace is bad and thus, Skyfall is bad. Skyfall is even worse, actually it's the worst Bond movie I've ever seen (but okay, I've only seen 7). Except Ben Whishaw, none of the actors is interesting and I was really annoyed by Judi Dench, because I've got to see her so often in this movie. The first scene with villain Javier Bardem is really cool and leaded me to expect the ending to better than the beginning, but in fact Bardem is just another stupid antagonist. When it comes to the final showdown, he is just dumb. The ending was really bad and I don't know how Sam Mendes could film such **** The action is not rememberable, the actors aren't good and the whole movie is at least half an hour too long. I have no clue why critics raved over this movie so much, it didn't entertain me at all. I was very disappointed with Skyfall and I'd suggest you not to spend money on the cinema ticket for this.… Expand

7 of 16 users found this helpful79

All this user's reviews

3

fayezroyalNov 10, 2012

There was nothing James Bond about this movie. Big let down on music, plot, and good use of product displacement. James Bond movies were always 50 years ahead of its time, there was no such technology or cars or anything that was used. TheThere was nothing James Bond about this movie. Big let down on music, plot, and good use of product displacement. James Bond movies were always 50 years ahead of its time, there was no such technology or cars or anything that was used. The plot of ex agent becoming the villan is same as golden eye plot. The bond girl was short lived. The relationship of skyfall in bonds life was not shown in the right way. They basicly could have shot the end scene somewhere else and it would not have mattered at all. They have a new Q. Come on. I couldn't trust him till the end... Lol.. And what the heck where they achieving by successfully locating James on the radar. I get it that he had to be tracked but don't keep telling us viewers that. It gets annoying. There was no super car. Just a jag scene and an old Astin Martin, that did nothing basically. Big let down on cars. Overall I was not impressed a bit.… Expand

13 of 38 users found this helpful1325

All this user's reviews

3

alm5609Nov 11, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Not the WORST James Bond but definitely not a good one. The writers really missed the mark on this one. James Bond's apparent death at the beginning of the film was not woven deep enough into the story. The missing MI6 agent roster really had no impact on the plot. The villains character was so irrational and illogical even for a James Bond movie. Now, I have to say I like Daniel Craig. He won me over when I saw Casino Royal and it proves he's better than this. If you pay close attention, the director has bond awkwardly standing and "taking in the view" while remaining all tough. He literally just stand there like an emotionless statue for the greater part of the film. LET THE MAN ACT! Create more interesting dialog! Allow a script to have reasonable action sequences! I like the updated: cold, hard, ruthless, willing to do anything to get the job done James Bond, but come on! It has to be a little dynamic. As an audience we need some way to "bond" with the character. You can tell they attempted to do this by trying to fill in a lot James Bond's past but ultimately failed (unneeded for plot). I didn't really feel like we needed to be introduced to James Bond's dead family, nor did we need to see his family's mansion from which he uses "Home Alone" tactics to repel the world worst assault force led by the worlds corniest bad guy. James Bond does need to be "re-vamped" but it needs to be done in the writing/directing department. It's a shame that after 4 years this is the best product they could produce. Heck, I'm even considering writing a James Bond screenplay after seeing how far off the mark these guys are. OH! I gave it a "3" because "M" is fiiiinnnnnnalllllllyyyyy getting replaced and the fact that this movie wasn't "Tomorrow Never Dies" which deserves a "0" in everyones book and should NEVER be shown to a public audience. Thanks for taking the time to read my ranting.… Expand

8 of 11 users found this helpful83

All this user's reviews

3

banstylejboNov 11, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfall might be the most un-Bond film in the series. There are little to none of the classic Bond tropes (gadgets, girls). in their place the movie is filled with personal issues and M being pushed out. The villain has the most small-potatoes plan of all the Bond villains. Still, the movie didn't entirely lose me until the final act where Bond and M hide out in his family's old Scotland home. At this point the movie took a big turn for the worse. The final act boiling down to a Straw Dogs/Home Alone type home defense scenario that is just boring and completely unoriginal. Setting aside plot holes, of which there are a number, this movie just left me scratching my head. After setting up a mysterious syndicate hiding in the shadows in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, this movie doesn't even make one mention of what had been built up in the previous two Craig movies. I just don't understand where they were going with this movie other than to just slap something together to introduce new actors in the roles of M, Q, and Moneypenny. The movie is overlong and spends too much time dealing with things that feel more like they came out of a Bourne movie. I had high hopes for this movie, but if Skyfall is the best we can get after 4 years, I think this franchise is going to get stale again pretty fast. Overall the movie isn't unwatchable, it is just not a Bond movie. There are some cool action sequences and Bardem isn't bad as the villain, but he doesn't have much to work with. Skip this one until it hits video.… Expand

7 of 11 users found this helpful74

All this user's reviews

3

DarkNovaNov 18, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I went into this movie expecting "the best bond movie yet" and what I got was far from that. The story line is horrid and for most of the story to even take place we have to accept that even though the characters are supposed to be the best and brightest England has to offer, they make some of the worst choices possible. 1.) The British government compiles a list of every nations undercover agents real names, puts said list on a laptop that some how finds it's way to Istanbul. - Really? MI6 is smart enough acquire that information but dumb enough to put it on a laptop and let it get out in the open? 2.) The villain is introduced as a genius computer hacker with some brilliant strategic skills. This might be true in the very beginning but quickly disappears. Rather than just shoot Bond and be rid of him, he blows a hole in the ceiling so that a subway train will coming crashing in and maybe kill Bond. - I thought we were past the days of "let's try to kill him with some crazy method where we don't actually see him die". Because that method works so well.... 3.) Q claims to also be a genius with computers but then he goes and connects the villain's laptop to their network which just so happens to also be running the security system. - Worst part of the movie for me was this moment because the second they connect his laptop you already know it'll have some "virus" that takes everything down in a matter of seconds thus freeing the villain.

Save yourself the time and money, go see something else.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

haslamNov 20, 2012

What can I say?! Like many, Im a Bond fan...but cannot understand how the 'media' has put this latest Bond movie in the same league as Goldfinger? The introductory action scene was good; the shot to Bond and his presumed death added a twist,What can I say?! Like many, Im a Bond fan...but cannot understand how the 'media' has put this latest Bond movie in the same league as Goldfinger? The introductory action scene was good; the shot to Bond and his presumed death added a twist, but from then on it was flatter than than the cinema cola I was drinking!! What on earth have the directors and producers created?! The story line was so weak it was painful...the Villan was an ex MI6 agent who was 'betrayed' by his Boss (M) and was now plotting on her downfall and death via cybercrime and access to a hardrive (from another MI6 agent) carrying data of all western secret agents...come on!!! Bond is here to settle a personal vendetta of an ex agent and his Boss?! With all that is going on in the world today, is this the best that can be done (even when being politically correct)! The various action scenes-Shanghai & Macau did not have substance. they came and went without a real reason. the Bond girls could not even be called that...their roles where so short. The gadgets and cars were non existant...Daniel Craig was good. He is looking alittle old and ragged, and feel this should be his last film as 007. The whole film was a a mixture of many films (Borne Identity, MI 1, Harry Potter, etc...). Personally I feel Mr Mendes has done a very poor job here, he was hired to do something different with Bond, but ended up making a real mess...Probably the worst Bond film ever made....even Timothy Dalton's two films were better...the 3 marks I give to Daniel Craig, for trying his best, Villain's Camp hairdo, and M's death....Utterly disappointed and disallusioned about the future of the 007............… Expand

7 of 11 users found this helpful74

All this user's reviews

3

ultralight47Dec 4, 2012

OK, he's shot in the chest, he falls a distance that is deadly, he goes over what could be Niagara Falls, and then 20 minutes later he's lying next to a woman in bed. No explanation given; some guys just don't die. I understand that withOK, he's shot in the chest, he falls a distance that is deadly, he goes over what could be Niagara Falls, and then 20 minutes later he's lying next to a woman in bed. No explanation given; some guys just don't die. I understand that with James Bond films belief must be suspended and situations are presented that don't make sense in the real world (like our defenseless hero is surrounded by armed opponents who follow the golden rule that they cannoct respond towards our hero until it is "their turn"), so I am somewhat predisposed not to like this type of film. But what is really wrong with this film is that the script is dumbed down to a fifth grade level and I may be too kind in this assessment. Really? People at this level of achievement talk with such a low grade -intelligence quotient?… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

3

Bo33yDec 22, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfail is all that can be said for the BOND experience in this film. The starting introduction was one of the best James Bond's I had seen. However this buzz quickly faded. The film began like the Matador (Pierce Brosnan) while finishing with a Home Alone ending. Every aspect of the classic James Bond was forgotten this was how they celebrated 50 years of James Bond. This films plot was awful and dire resulting in an invasion at home and HQ. From a double agent hacker, because hacking makes the world go around, and hacking explains the most unimaginable and can fill all the gap holes in very story from here China. The bond girl is Money Penny the assassin, instead of her classic secretarial evaluator role, or a Chinese prostitute who the heartless bond couldn't careless for and dies in 5 minutes, or the granny M. There was absolutely no Bond girl of any substance. There was no gadgets, and the classic Bond car gets blown up. The macho bond, who is intelligent, witty, savvy, and sophisticated gets all the hot girls, plays with all the cool toys, kills all the villains by using the cool moves, while doing his own stunts and looking awesome. No this image wasn't there at all. He is reduced to a drunken mess like in the Matador, the most erotic scene was with a queerish villain, Bond struggles with home invasion and has mommy issues. Q is also some spotty teenager this is why he didn't have any toys. The dynamic 's of the opening Bond song have changed and are replaced by Chinese dragons or some other visual scenery that is totally irrelevant instead of being about the entire film or its punchline. While missing mostly the silhouette of Bond Girls, Bond and Villains even. What a disappointment and a skyfail to JAMES BOND after 50 years. They have changed in through this film into something else the opposite.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

3

dansky3Feb 13, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I like Casino Royale, I like the Bond formula, I hated Quantum of Solace but I thought... surely it can't be worse. I was right, but only just. I'm going to slate this film and for one main reason; what is the point in making a Bond movie if the character isn't even recognisably Bond?
Instead of a suave sophisticated agent you get a washed out has-been (who can still miraculously perform anything he needs to); instead of him bedding beautiful women he jokes when they die; instead of fighting a supervillain who wants to take over the world he's fighting a complete idiot (see plot-holes); instead of gadgets he gets a tracing chip the size of a toaster and a fingerprint PPK whoop-dee-woo. OK, OK.... Its a new Bond, he's got to be more realistic in a post-Bourne world?? So, they have a plot that's so riddled with holes you can (literally) drive a tube train through it; an enemy that appears to be insanely competent but then completely insane; an unsurvivable fall; an unescapable escape; and a ridiculous ending where Bond, an old man and an old women take on and win against a small army.

Bond has no charm, the film has no warmth, the characters make no sense, the dialogue is wooden, the love scenes cold, the action heavy handed, and the film betrays the Bond legacy. Why 3/10? Because the cinematography....

... is lush. I fully expect the cinematography to win an oscar. Watch it for that, but otherwise this is not even a Bond film and the last in the franchise I'll watch.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

3

LaGuertaFeb 26, 2013

The progress made in bringing the franchise into the modern age is spectacularly undone. By the end of this film, you find yourself staring at the start of every early Bond film. While this could have been a superb way to wrap up 'Bond willThe progress made in bringing the franchise into the modern age is spectacularly undone. By the end of this film, you find yourself staring at the start of every early Bond film. While this could have been a superb way to wrap up 'Bond will return' and that is rather a depressing notion.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

3

BillzHereJul 22, 2014

This Bond movie is probably one of worst I've seen to be quite honest. I don't have much of problem with the actors as they get the job done; it's more so with the movie itself. I had no clue what was happening throughout the entire movie,This Bond movie is probably one of worst I've seen to be quite honest. I don't have much of problem with the actors as they get the job done; it's more so with the movie itself. I had no clue what was happening throughout the entire movie, and I wasn't going to watch it a second time to try and understand what the hell happened. This movie's villain is probably one of the lamest I've seen in a bond film, shameful and weak is what it is. Comparing this movie to it's predecessor, Casino Royale, is like comparing a brass brick to a golden brick. This movie without a doubt is bad, from it's sheer boring feel, to it's nonsensical story. Watch any other Bond film.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

7macawDec 3, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. CGI is good, as is typical in modern movies. However, it is also typical for _Bond_ movies to have an epic evil guy. Nuke a major city, disrupt the global economy that is the kind of plan we all come to expect from the Bond's antagonist. But in this movie the bad guy is just a disgruntled former employee on steroids.

What's worse, he did have all the necessary ingredients: a personal island with some satellite communication equipment, an army of well-armed devotees... And what does he do? He just tries to get personal revenge against his former boss by running around with a pistol. That's so... non-epic!… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

youiweaDec 17, 2013

WORST BOND I HAVE EVER SEEN. Craig is a good actor (see Layer Cake), Casino Royale was good (almost as good as Goldeneye...not the game, though...CLASSIC!), and Quantum was a let-down, comparatively, but compared to Skyfall, as masterpiece.WORST BOND I HAVE EVER SEEN. Craig is a good actor (see Layer Cake), Casino Royale was good (almost as good as Goldeneye...not the game, though...CLASSIC!), and Quantum was a let-down, comparatively, but compared to Skyfall, as masterpiece. The absurdity of this movie's plot-line is only rivaled by the absurdity of the money invested in it and the degree of claimed positive reception...It's so bad, I can't even sort out what, specifically to criticize. All I can say to summarize is that the fact that this film received such positive reviews compared to the other contemporary "JB" (James Bond/Jason Bourne) film, Bourne Legacy's relatively poor critical reception speaks volumes about the state of our society...Skyfall was utter rubbish, whilst as good as the Damon Bourne films were, Legacy was, to an objective reviewer, superior to even those, and yet received mixed to poor reviews...what a racket. Here's hoping Barbara Broccoli has the wisdom to recruit Paul Greengrass for Bond XXIV. Wake up S(m)erfs.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

3

RasheedNinjaFeb 19, 2015

I was hoping this movie, because it's a James Bond film, would be very interesting, clever, and cool. On the other hand, Me and my friend found this movie terribly boring. In fact, so boring that I was desperately trying not to fall asleep inI was hoping this movie, because it's a James Bond film, would be very interesting, clever, and cool. On the other hand, Me and my friend found this movie terribly boring. In fact, so boring that I was desperately trying not to fall asleep in the theatre and crying in my mind for some action scenes to fill in that empty spot of pleasure. However, all the action lasted for only around 1-2 minutes. It's different when you have company and you watch an tenious film when you were expecting some decent action scenes with a great storyline.

Also, this character for James Bond just doesn't cut it for me! He's like this strange emo guy that doesn't fit the classy James Bond role, who in my opinion is a gentleman, clever, mysterious, a bit of a prevent, but still pretty dope if you know what I mean. Daniel doesn't fit any of these traits! Sorry, Skyfall is nothing to me! Other people may like it but for me no!

The only parts of the movie I'd enjoyed was the introduction with Adele singing Skyfall and the "gay" scene. 3.5/10… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

CameraBounceGodAug 12, 2018

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. i find it hard to watch the entire thing as the climax is boring as hell and cheap seeming. I do like however the fact that Bardems character doesn't like taking orders from old women which i can relate to big time. I feel like they should have somehow shown bond contemplating living a normal life before coming back.The poetry scene is embarrassing and retarded. I like the way they beefed up the Q character but it seems as though they failed to follow up on it. The adele song is pretty bad ofcourse. the name Money Penny is so stupid that bringing back the character and name only with a black face is almost racist the way they were obviously trying so hard to not be racist. the idea of the fight in the casino is just preposterous seeing how they wanted him to come along for the boat ride. a good thing they did was to show how Ms choice for money penny to take the shot is clearly a thing that has caught up to her from the past and she catches flak. s problem is that i feel like Bardem's character would have way more henchmen and what the hell ever happened to having a crazy lead henchmen like odd job and jaws? one last thing is that it makes little sense that you would try to hit someone with a train by derailing it. also the scorpion bar scene would have just been cooler without the scorpion..… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

2

StealthgearSep 27, 2013

Skyfall has no heart. The actors seem like robots with flat performances. Nobody smiles much and its not funny or entertaining.
Bad color work. Every scene looks like a photoshop filter. Every scene is bathed in an oompa loompa orange glow.Skyfall has no heart. The actors seem like robots with flat performances. Nobody smiles much and its not funny or entertaining.
Bad color work. Every scene looks like a photoshop filter. Every scene is bathed in an oompa loompa orange glow.
The characters, plot, and dialogue are quite simply boring due lack of complexity and mystery.
The music isn't quite exciting enough, but it matches the slow pacing.
Politically tiresome. Having M and Bond on poor terms, then a bad relationship with the agency AND his other field agent was quite lame.
The movie is Lord of the Rings long (almost 3 hours) without any of the epic scale and depth. Its so slow its hard to follow.
You don't see the villain until halfway through the movie. This never works in any movie, just like Superman Returns. There should be some back and forth between the villain and good guy in the beginning.

On the plus side there is a few cool vehicle scenes, but nothing I'd spend money only to see.

They should have called it Downfall. While Casino Royale was only OK, the series has been worse and worse. The truth is that Daniel Craig and the production team that did this aren't suave and inventive enough to make a good bond movie. The last people to come up with a good Bond story was EA's Everything or Nothing video game. Don't watch Skyfall.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

2

deamonhunterNov 25, 2012

I expected a lot more from the movie. The previous movies where great but this has only a very few good moments. It doesn't follow the normal Bond franchise action packed fim. Also the tragic elements have a weird mixture. I would adviseI expected a lot more from the movie. The previous movies where great but this has only a very few good moments. It doesn't follow the normal Bond franchise action packed fim. Also the tragic elements have a weird mixture. I would advise James Bond fans to just skip this movie.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

2

PhorosisNov 14, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In a word, disappointing. Javier Bardem's character had the potential to be one of the most memorable villains in the franchise. After his introduction you really felt this was going to get good. Smart, charismatic, and the resources to take over the world. Instead we get this creepy guy's confusing witch hunt to kill M (? Why not just blow her up??). Just bizarre that we are expected to root for characters like Bond and M, when we literally have no reason to. He's a dick and she's a **** The hot bond girl featured in all the commercials has like a 10 minute spot. Where is the evil Bond girl? As people here have already stated, if this wasn't a Bond movie it would be alright. I could buy the betrayal, revenge plot but as a Bond movie it was missing almost every ingredient. Finally, my ears are still bleeding from that awful intro song.… Expand

5 of 7 users found this helpful52

All this user's reviews

2

AnnabelleNov 10, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was such a disappointment after Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. I was so excited to see Javier Bardem as the villain, but all we have is a psychologically damaged former spy who has a poorly dyed hair and eyebrow job and a poor script. Where were Bond's new toys? A new gun and a transmitter hardly qualify. Even the romance was missing. The action was sub par to previous Bond movies. I had read some critics reviews before seeing the show and I was anticipating something great. Far from it. I wonder what movie those folks had seen because this sure was a disappointment. This makes me wonder about the caliber of future Bond movies. If this is the direction the future movies are taking, I guess I will be watching the old shows rather than the new ones from here on in.… Expand

7 of 13 users found this helpful76

All this user's reviews

2

DustbowlHippieNov 10, 2012

Probably the most boring Bond movie I've seen. Unfortunate, as I came into it with medium-rare expectations. I'd wait for Redbox, at best. See something else on the big screen.

7 of 12 users found this helpful75

All this user's reviews

2

MalangatanaNov 14, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Stop calling it the best Bond film ever! (Minor Spoilers)

Regardless of whether you think this film is good this film simply isn't the best Bond film ever. In fact, it's not really even Bond. Yes, Daniel Craig is a great choice for Bond I fully agree. Casino Royal is second only to classics like Goldfinger, and Quantum is not as hopeless as the public at large would have you believe. The elephant in the room with Skyfall is the storytelling. Ian Flemming's series of novels creates a world for Bond that is incredibly rich, detailed and logical. Sure at times, it requires suspension of disbelief, but not in an absolute way like a comic book or sci-fi film forces a viewer to do. The true pearls of the Bond series are the films that are tethered in some way to reality. Skyfall Bond is obviously not original content, but no attempt was made to reconcile the character or story with the original intentions of the author. If you have a deep appreciation of the literary character or a complete knowledge of the film series, you are much less likely to enjoy this movie because the plot does not regard the essence of Bond.

I'm shocked that fewer critics have pointed out Skyfall's SHOCKINGLY lazy and poorly executed storytelling. One example, right from the start that I think conveys what I mean:

The first scene, Bond is shot twice including by a military grade sniper rifle. He falls what appears to be 100 meters straight on his back. HOW DID HE SURVIVE? Why does he only have the 9mm shrapnel/wound with his shirt off? To me a masterpiece, or even a decent movie, simply cannot leave points like that (and literally a dozen other major plot gaps for which 'hacking' is the silver bullet) unresolved. Bond is not invincible, he's actually quite vulnerable in the novels. A Bond vehicle cannot invoke suspension of disbelief so outrageously and then expect me to take it seriously. Casino Royal (and many older films in the series) proved that Bond doesn't need to have superhero powers. They can tell a great story, include quality action and obey some basic principles of reality. A Bond story that enters a world so completely devoid of the governing principles of reality is the ultimate copout and at fundamentally not Bond.

Again, non-Bond fans are entitled to say it's a great movie. But it is really asinine to make statements to the effect of 'Best Bond Ever'. Watch all 23. Read one of the books. People would be outraged if Lord of the Rings didn't respect the vision of Tolkien, so why is it different with Flemming?… Expand

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

All this user's reviews

2

blobinaNov 19, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Where to even begin with how awful this movie is??? First, I LOVE action films. I LOVE Bond films. I LOVE Sam Mendes. Does that mean they should all be in one movie together? Um.... no. As a preface, I was really excited by all the hype for this film and waited in line for two hours to redeem my $22 IMAX ticket at the only "real" IMAX theater in NYC to get the very best seat in the house. And what did I get for this dedication? A meandering story line that was derivative, ridiculous, and at least thirty minutes too long (how does this "old guy Bond" that can't even pass a simple fitness test survive being shot with a high-grade weapon and falling several stories into a huge waterfall??); scenes and subplots that barely even made sense (why does Bond meet the Bond girl and determine she is a former child sex trade worker, then suddenly appear like a CREEP in her shower, promise to save her, and then let her die in the next scene commenting callously that her death was a waste of good scotch-- POINTLESS if not creepy); idiotic plot devices (why do people need a flashlight to find a huge building in a field lit up by massive explosions and flames? Ummmm, let's see... to make them easy for the villain to find...??); lame, lame LAAAAAMMMMMEE fight sequences (that Shanghai club scene was so ho-hum after all the build up. Not to mention it contained the ONLY bit of pay off on the supposedly "cool" gun. Why does a Chinese body guard not carry his own gun and how does he not know there is a huge dragon in this pit in the place where he works, nor manage to see it coming?).
The gadgets were boring- an iPod mini is cooler than that radio- and the scenes were overall, way too drawn out.
How, how HOW have we forgotten the primary rule of cinema-- SHOW don't tell???? I don't want to hear a long monologue about a Chinese prison sentence, I want to SEE it. I don't want to watch Bond follow two steps behind, discovering Patrice's trail of dead bodies- I want to see the kills! I want to SEE Javier Bardem's awesome escape from this airtight cell, instead of leaving Q to "suddenly realize" that he must have been planning it all along and somehow magically foresaw all these incredible details blah blah blah. Show me how this crazy cool fingerprint gun works! Give me a tour of your awesome Aston Martin that's so much cooler now than it was in Goldfinger. At least let me see the CGI scorpion TRY to sting Bond.... SOMETHING. And why oh why is the cleaning guy at the little beach bungalow bar watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN conveniently at sunrise...? Are you serious?? That's REALLY the best you can do with a team of three accomplished Hollywood writers? I want to SEE how Bond survived his crazy fall, if he's so old and has a bullet wound. The pacing of this film was slow, WAY to slow for an action film. Bond lost, in my opinion, all his sex appeal- the shower scene was so far from steamy and the shaving scene was loooonnnnngg and went nowhere. There was no build at all to the momentum of this film. Points where the suspense should have been at a high (like in M's hearing) plodded along with the efficiency of a three-toed sloth. Points where Bond could have been a hero (like for example, SAVING the Bond girl to make her three scenes at least kind of pay off) were missing entirely. With all the technology today, you would think they could have come up with some cooler gadgets and taken the time to show us how they work, because the HOW is really the awesome part of action movies anyway.
And why oh WHY did we witness at least ten minutes of film establishing how old and beat up James Bond is these days, and how he can't even pass a fitness test, only for NONE of this information to ever pay off anywhere else in the story??? I'm all for exploring the aging super hero thing, like Batman as a shut in facing foreclosure, but this just seemed like an unresolved, half-explored idea.

Javier Bardem stole the show as always, and actually held my attention with his two very lengthy monologues. In the hands of another actor, this role could have been ridiculous but he brought out the creepy sadism and kept it bubbling just under the surface for the whole film, justifying as best he could WHY (why oh why, Writers??) a man with such "limitless power" might wait fifteen years to kill the woman he hated most, biding his time with stock market manipulation, and why it seems like such a process to kill her when he can apparently blow up MI6 with undetected ease. Judi Dench and Albert Finney were both excellent as always, and truly made up the only emotional core of this film, being the only actors who were able to achieve a measure of compassion or depth.
Daniel Craig was pouty and plasticky as usual and his body language continues to seem put on and unconvinced. Eve Moneypenny had all the vim and vigor of a corporate lawyer and I really wasn't sold on that casting choice. All around- LAME BOND.… Expand

11 of 16 users found this helpful115

All this user's reviews

2

coreylikefeldmaNov 25, 2012

James Bond films are iconic not just for adventure also for the beautiful bevy of Bond girls that act as sirens to our beloved 007. Skyfall has taken the newest profession of its featured Bond girl in this film to an all time low. TheJames Bond films are iconic not just for adventure also for the beautiful bevy of Bond girls that act as sirens to our beloved 007. Skyfall has taken the newest profession of its featured Bond girl in this film to an all time low. The beautiful heroin is actually a victim of human bondage. This practice is repugnant enough, but to show case this exploitation of women as sexy; is blatantly disrespectful to all women, especially to those who suffer under these very real and very deplorable living conditions.
The audience quickly discovers that this damsel in distress; is actually and quite literally the branded property, of the antagonist in Skyfall. The heroic Bond promises the very terrified woman that he will avenge her captors and in the following scene successfully dukes it out with several of the antagonist henchman. In the next scene 007 slips comfortably into the shower with the woman in bondage and proceeds to sleep with her. No woman alive can resist the charming allure of James Bond! This theme has been resonated in every Bond film since it… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

2

scottmdNov 27, 2012

The first movie was nothing short of genius. Witty, interesting, gritty and thrilling. The second, while cryptic, still managed to bring together another very good film, providing valuable insight into the character of 007. So what happenedThe first movie was nothing short of genius. Witty, interesting, gritty and thrilling. The second, while cryptic, still managed to bring together another very good film, providing valuable insight into the character of 007. So what happened to the third? It seems to have crossed over the fine line separating true grit from trite "I got there just in time" scenarios. So what was different this time? Directors come and go with every film but the key difference here was in the writing. Garbage in, garbage out. There was one different writer in this film compared with the first two movies. Please bring back Paul Haggis (Crash, Million Dollar Baby) on the nex one. He was sorely missed this time around.… Expand

9 of 12 users found this helpful93

All this user's reviews

2

nitpickDec 5, 2012

nitpick of 4th December forgot to give a score. I reckon 2 will have to do..
Too violent, too loud and too frazzled what with psychobabble being used to 'stiffen' the utter brutality of the anti-hero..
PS. The 'hero', Craig, was totallynitpick of 4th December forgot to give a score. I reckon 2 will have to do..
Too violent, too loud and too frazzled what with psychobabble being used to 'stiffen' the utter brutality of the anti-hero..
PS. The 'hero', Craig, was totally devoid of charm and what elegance he possessed was superfluous.
Broccoli team should retire in toto!!… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

2

chaz12Dec 16, 2012

I did not care for this movie, which is disappointing because I loved the first Daniel Craig movie. This one however was just cheesy. The plot and situations were implausible, and so predictable. There was absolutely no suspense. I halfI did not care for this movie, which is disappointing because I loved the first Daniel Craig movie. This one however was just cheesy. The plot and situations were implausible, and so predictable. There was absolutely no suspense. I half expected Austin Powers to pop out at some point. To top it off, the movie drags on for 2 1/2 hours

It was a return to the same tired old villain format: a mad genius who is unstoppable, who outsmarts MI6 at every turn. And what is Bond's brilliant plan to get one step ahead of him for a change? Why, flee to a remote location in Scotland with no weapons and no support, where he can be outnumbered 20 to 1 and outgunned by the bad guys. But, guess who wins anyway. Bond also regresses in terms of being portrayed as a human being. Here, he seems more like the evil terminator from T2. He behaves purely mechanically, unfeeling, driven by will alone. His lack of human qualities makes it hard to identify with him and root for him. I've watched Casino Royale at least a half dozen times, but nothing in this film would make me feel like ever watching it again.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

2

tooktheredpillDec 30, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I started falling asleep not through lack of sleep and couldn't wait for it too end by the time they were at Skyfall. Nowhere near as good as Casino Royale and only slightly better than that Quantum rubbish. It seems that women like it and men think its a waste. Ridiculous dialogue at times - even for a Bond movie. Scoring 92% at rottentomatoes is proof of a conspiracy.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

Skyfall

User Reviews