Skyfall

User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1624 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

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

User Reviews

  1. Nov 11, 2012
    5
    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
  2. Jul 7, 2013
    4
    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 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,
    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 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
  3. Nov 13, 2012
    5
    Unsatisfactory and underwhelming. sadasdasdasdsadasdsadasafasfsdafsaasssdgsdsdgaasdfsdafdasfsadfasdfsadfsafasdfasdfasasfafafassadasdfsadsadfdaasfaafas
  4. Sep 24, 2013
    4
    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)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
  5. Dec 6, 2012
    6
    Meh, Casino Royal is better. I like bond movies and I like this one. But this whole Jason Bourne is Bond deal is kinda a downer. Every movie the treatment becomes more Dragon Tattoo than Goldfinger. But I guess that's what people want. It's not awful.
  6. Apr 21, 2013
    4
    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 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'sJust 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
  7. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    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.
  8. Jan 2, 2013
    4
    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 everything also was not good.
  9. Jan 11, 2013
    5
    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
  10. Nov 10, 2012
    5
    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.
  11. Nov 22, 2012
    5
    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
  12. Feb 15, 2013
    5
    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 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 theThis 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
  13. Nov 10, 2012
    5
    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.
  14. Nov 13, 2012
    5
    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 to aspire to more than just silly revenge. It is however very well shot. This falls short of Bourne for me.
  15. Dec 20, 2012
    6
    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 the house is so unreal its sad. sure its entertaining but at that budget - we deserve more.
  16. Feb 6, 2013
    4
    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.
  17. Nov 10, 2012
    6
    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 deliveredI 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
  18. Nov 14, 2012
    6
    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. 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 CasinoJames 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
  19. 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
  20. Jun 1, 2013
    6
    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 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 likableSkyfall 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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 negativeIll 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
  24. Dec 3, 2012
    6
    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 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 notdon'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
  25. Nov 16, 2012
    5
    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
  26. Nov 9, 2012
    5
    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
  27. Nov 10, 2012
    4
    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, deep storyline, where characters had intricacies, and separate stories of their own. Skyfall is missing this. I love the classic Bond movies, and think
    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, 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
  28. Nov 10, 2012
    6
    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 wasFirstly, 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
  29. Nov 11, 2012
    4
    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
  30. Nov 14, 2012
    6
    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/directer really made the ending quite obvious, and somewhat predictable. There are many positives however, Javier Bardem was quite good, and very unlikeableI 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
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 49 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 49
  2. Negative: 0 out of 49
  1. Reviewed by: Roger Moore
    Nov 5, 2015
    88
    Skyfall is far and away the best, and the most British of the Daniel Craig-James Bond movies.
  2. Reviewed by: Robbie Collin
    Nov 5, 2015
    80
    Mendes...lets the quieter moments breathe.... But Mendes is rather good at being loud, too, and his nine times Oscar-nominated cinematographer Roger Deakins makes the wildly ambitious action sequences the most beautiful in Bond’s 50-year career.
  3. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Nov 5, 2015
    70
    While trading on viewers’ familiarity with the series’ venerable fetishes (a cheer rises at the sight of Bond’s old Aston Martin and the sound of Monty Norman’s guitar theme from Dr. No), Skyfall has the life, grandeur and gravity of a satisfying, stand-alone entertainment.