User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1297 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 23, 2012
    0
    Bad just isn't strong enough a word to describe this film. Atrocious is closer. Everything that made the James Bond series has been thrown away, to be replaced by a washed up old man that can not even shoot straight. The film relied on tired throw backs to the classics to try and keep people interested, and convice them that yes this garbage was supposed to be a James Bond movie.

    If you
    have not seen it, don't waste your money. Expand
  2. Dec 22, 2012
    3
    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. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    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
  4. Dec 16, 2012
    2
    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 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
  5. Dec 14, 2012
    4
    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
  6. Dec 13, 2012
    0
    I have no idea how Roger Ebert gave this film a perfect score. Perhaps he and Daniel Craig buy their Metamucil at the same store. The plot of this film is absolutely atrocious. A rogue MI6 operative that can impose any diabolical plan he desires using the almighty power of the internet? James Bond was portrayed as a washed up old man, more fit to be sitting on a bar stool singing along to Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" then saving the world. The only hope for the Bond series is the fact that this movie was unrecognizable as a James Bond film and is easily forgotten. Expand
  7. Dec 13, 2012
    0
    What a disappointment . I loved the last two Bonds but this was very poor .Found myself looking at my watch in the cinema wishing it would end . I was tempted to leave when we got to the HOME ALONE parody at the end . Stupid villains just kept on coming despite 90% casualties ,meanwhile Mand a dreadful Albert Finney decided to use a torch on the not very dark moores so the villains could easily find them . Perhaps the most puzzling aspect was the assassination in Shanghai .The bad guys had their victim in a room at the top of a building .Do they shoot him ,strangle him or knife him . No ; they get a world class assassin to go up the next building ,drill through armoured glass and then kill him with a sniper rifle .leaving them yo dispose of the body . On top of this rediculous scenario ,they paid him a huge amount of money . the film ambled along in this fashion interminably . PLEASE DONT GIVE MENDES ANOTHER GO . Expand
  8. Dec 8, 2012
    0
    WOW and to think I thought Lincoln was a little long and boring.......
    the critics high point reviews are an insult to us all...
    I'm really trying to think of some positives:
    Adele, the moto scene (whole movie downhill from there)
    thats it. thats all I can think of. oh yeah : it was good looking at times.
  9. Dec 5, 2012
    2
    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 totally devoid of charm and what elegance he possessed was superfluous.
    Broccoli team should retire in toto!!
  10. Dec 4, 2012
    4
    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 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
  11. Dec 4, 2012
    3
    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 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
  12. Dec 3, 2012
    0
    Skyfall's greatest failure? Depicting James Bond as both a physical and emotional cripple. I go to see a Bond movie because I want to see Bond kicking ass, while sipping a martini, with bikini-glad girls at his side. I do not go to see a Bond movie to witness a midlife crisis and angst.

    This is the worst Bond movie ever made. Don't believe the hype. The reason this film has the most
    hype out of any Bond movie ever released is because it is horrendous and they need to make their money before negative word of mouth sinks it. Expand
  13. Dec 2, 2012
    1
    I like most Bond fans was looking forward to this latest installment, but was left bewildered and disappointed. Yes I know that with these type of films one shouldn't analyze too much and just enjoy the escapism from reality. Seriously this film had so many flaws and just plain stupid moments that just belied belief. If your going to go with a new direction when making a Bond movie wouldn't you make it edgy and different. This was just plain dumb. I sat in Gold Class and couldn't wait for it to be over. What a shame. Expand
  14. Nov 29, 2012
    3
    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
  15. Nov 29, 2012
    4
    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
  16. Nov 27, 2012
    2
    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 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
  17. Nov 27, 2012
    4
    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
  18. Nov 26, 2012
    0
    Skyfall was horrible; They made Javier Bardem which was a total bad ass in "No Country for Old Men" a homosexual and when he put the moves on James Bond (Daniel Craig) Bond said " who hasn't said I haven't done this before?" implying that Bond is bisexual!!!! They totally killed Bond as he was in "Casino Royale" when Craig reinvented Bond as a cut throat. Now he is reverting back to the old Bond that says cheesy lines in a totally predictable brainless story. How lame!!!!! My score for this movie would be a negative, I loved Daniel Craig as Bond in Casino Royale,but Quantum of Solace was a joke,and Skyfall killed Bond Expand
  19. Nov 25, 2012
    3
    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
  20. MB_
    Nov 25, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Why didn't the badguy just kill Q at home or when he exploded her headquarters? Why didn't Bond ask for a doctor to remove the fragments rather than using a knife and his left hand? Why didn't the bad guy just kill bond, what did he want him for? Why didn't they just hide in the tunnel as the bad guy didn't know it existed? Why did the priest hole lead to no where? Why did Bond walk over the ice when everyone else went around? Where did the ice henchman appear from? Why did Q plug the bad guy's PC into the network rather than an isolated PC? Why did they lock the badguy in a glass room which is locked electronically rather than just use a padlock? When did Bond set off the radio beacon on the island and why didn't the electronics mastermind badguy not have him checked? When did the badguy put the explosives on the roof of the chamber letting the train through, wouldn't he have used his time better, running away? Why didn't they just withdraw all the at risk agents? Why didn't bond shoot him at any point, he'd be tortured for months by the Chinese why would he talk to them? Why was there more screen time dedicated to Judi Dench than for Daniel Craig? Why did bond's face change from Brosnan to Craig yet M's is still Dench? Why would you cut up a perfectly good opening action scene to an old woman moaning in an office ever 30 seconds? Can I get a refund? Expand
  21. Nov 25, 2012
    2
    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. 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
  22. Nov 25, 2012
    0
    Yikes! I actually joined this 'metacritic' forum just so I can ask this question: Did everyone who gave this movie a good review watch the same movie I did? Is something going on here? Bad, bad movie. I dislike wasting my money. Thank goodness I went to a discount theater.
  23. Nov 25, 2012
    2
    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 advise James Bond fans to just skip this movie.
  24. Nov 24, 2012
    4
    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 and fantasy elements. This is too real world, too much like a stock standard action film.
  25. Nov 23, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. My god, where do I start.

    1) This isn't a Bond movie
    2) Story is more boring than my grandma, and she's been dead for 15 years
    3) Errors, errors, so many errors. I usually wouldn't even care for these in a Bond movie, but this is just too much to bear
    4) There is no plot whatsoever
    5) Unlikable M - I hoped she died halfway during the movie. At least she did die in the end, for which I'll give a 1 for this movie instead of a 0
    6) I was waiting until something would actually happen, then suddenly there were the ending credits.
    7) How the hell did this horrible 'movie' get so many positive reviews and high marks?!
    8) Etcetera, etcetera
    Expand
  26. Nov 21, 2012
    0
    "SkyFail" (This movie is so bad it inspired me to post a review)

    To be honest I expected a reboot similar to the batman franchise. It turned out to be a major letdown, due to a complete cliche plot, bland acting and blatant incompetence of the characters pasted together with the only redeeming feature: thrilling action scenes. Please remember to turn your brain off before watching this,
    if you do this movie might even be worth your money. Expand
  27. Nov 20, 2012
    3
    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
  28. Nov 19, 2012
    2
    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
  29. Nov 19, 2012
    4
    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
  30. Nov 19, 2012
    4
    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, and then M's dead at the end, which destroys James' invulnerable image ... absolutely a matter of taste!
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 43
  2. Negative: 0 out of 43
  1. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Nov 9, 2012
    60
    Skyfall leaves you wondering whether this incarnation of the character has anywhere left to go. It's the portrait of a spy at the end of his rope by an actor who seems close to his.
  2. Reviewed by: Rene Rodriguez
    Nov 9, 2012
    88
    Mendes' approach to action is classical and elegant - no manic editing and blurry unintelligible images here - but what makes the movie truly special is the attention he gives his actors.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Nov 9, 2012
    60
    The sky is far from falling on the Bond franchise. In fact, it is as good as it has ever been. What's more, Craig is reportedly on board for at least two more outings, so Q had better get to work on those bifocals because 007 is no where near ready for retirement.