User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1416 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch 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
  1. Nov 25, 2012
    5
    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.
  2. Dec 29, 2012
    6
    It is hard to fault the brilliant direction of Mendes. It is even harder to imagine a better performance than that of Javier Bardem as the villain. But take the opening high adrenaline sequence away and there is little left of a Bond film and more of an artful drama.
  3. BKM
    Apr 4, 2013
    6
    I've never been a big fan of the James Bond series, so my review of the film is biased right from the get go. Still I was a bit surprised at what Sam Mendes had to offer up at the helm of the latest entry. Skyfall finds 007 trying to find his place in a modern world where computer hacking is a more powerful tool than disguises and fancy gadgets. More importantly, the film explores theI've never been a big fan of the James Bond series, so my review of the film is biased right from the get go. Still I was a bit surprised at what Sam Mendes had to offer up at the helm of the latest entry. Skyfall finds 007 trying to find his place in a modern world where computer hacking is a more powerful tool than disguises and fancy gadgets. More importantly, the film explores the notion of whether or not the intelligence game has become antiquated and what it has cost those who play it. But in spite of the film's commendable artistic ambitions, it's ultimately too cool and lethargic for its own good. Expand
  4. Dec 22, 2012
    5
    "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."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
  5. Nov 12, 2012
    5
    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 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 expectI 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
  6. Nov 19, 2012
    6
    I have mixed feeling about this film. Overall, I was disappointed and the main reason was that the nothing was developed to make it really interesting. Let's start with the villain. Bardem is a great actor but you need some back ground to make him villainious. They actually did have some of the best scenes in the movie when Bond meets Bardem. However, there is no depth given to how heI have mixed feeling about this film. Overall, I was disappointed and the main reason was that the nothing was developed to make it really interesting. Let's start with the villain. Bardem is a great actor but you need some back ground to make him villainious. They actually did have some of the best scenes in the movie when Bond meets Bardem. However, there is no depth given to how he becomes a villain and little face time with Bond. The same with the new Q. He just shows up. The plot has no depth either. We get little of Bond except in the first scene working on this. The movie really becomes about him protecting M and that really is not that interesting. The final scene reminded me of "Strawdogs" but without the tension or excitement. I had hopes for this series when they got rid of Roger Moore and the supervilian with the hugh fight scene at his hidden lair. However, the improvements are marginal with each new film and that takes several years. I don't know if I can wait for them to put an entire film together that is entertaining. Expand
  7. Nov 27, 2012
    5
    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 lotAnother 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
  8. May 19, 2013
    6
    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 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
    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 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
  9. Jan 24, 2013
    5
    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, fights and explosions, an unbeatable agent, a cool boss, the beautiful girl and the eccentric villain. This story only provides three interesting things;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, 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
  10. Apr 2, 2013
    4
    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.
  11. Nov 11, 2012
    4
    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 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.
  12. Nov 15, 2012
    6
    This movie was way overhyped... and as a result it was a let down. I should let everyone know up front that I'm not a James Bond fan at all, but there were a few that I liked. So from all the review, I figured this movie would be very enjoyable. Unfortunately, the first half was very boring... like most James Bond movies, and the main villain shows up over half way through the film, whichThis movie was way overhyped... and as a result it was a let down. I should let everyone know up front that I'm not a James Bond fan at all, but there were a few that I liked. So from all the review, I figured this movie would be very enjoyable. Unfortunately, the first half was very boring... like most James Bond movies, and the main villain shows up over half way through the film, which at that point it turned interesting. However, the ending didn't really leave me satisfied. You'd think that they could come up with a better way for Bond to dispatch the villain... Oh well... I'm sure all Bond fans will love it, just like they love all Bond movies. But for those of you who aren't fans, you can pass on this one. There are other movies out there that probably deserve viewing first. Expand
  13. Nov 12, 2012
    5
    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 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 asThis 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
  14. Feb 18, 2013
    6
    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 you pretty much know what to expect and Skyfall delivers exactly this.
  15. Nov 11, 2012
    5
    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 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 intoThis 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. Collapse
  16. 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 ableReally 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
  17. Ozy
    Apr 15, 2014
    4
    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 first 15minutes of another epic bond film.
  18. 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!
  19. Nov 9, 2012
    6
    Sympathy for the Devil

    Sam Mendes' James Bond makes the mistake of making the villain more compelling than the hero. Javier Bardem, only introduced a hour into the film, is so convincing as the bad guy, he makes the rest of the film seem very contrived. The film talks modernity through 1950's clipped Oxbridge tones. Dench, Fiennes, Wilshaw - it's Cameron toffs that dominate the screen.
    Sympathy for the Devil

    Sam Mendes' James Bond makes the mistake of making the villain more compelling than the hero. Javier Bardem, only introduced a hour into the film, is so convincing as the bad guy, he makes the rest of the film seem very contrived. The film talks modernity through 1950's clipped Oxbridge tones. Dench, Fiennes, Wilshaw - it's Cameron toffs that dominate the screen. Only the plumber with the 00 prefix sounds 'working class' and he is a Scottish Laird -- even the black Moneypenny seems to have attended at last a Redbrick and Roedean. It starts well enough,with Bond killed by friendly fire. Then, without a word of explanation, he returns. How? A plot to kill M is hatched by deranged former agent Bardem.Trouble is, I found myself cheering him on. Wrong, huh? I preferred the emotional roller coaster of Casino Royale to this - I cared more about Bond and Vesper than Bond and M. Too much jingoism as well. I'd kill M too if I were in the service - heartless ****
    Expand
  20. Nov 28, 2012
    6
    Not as a good as Casino Royal, for sure. This Bond movie felt like several stories mashed together (or several scripts?), and though long, seemed to be missing the real character moments/buildup of stakes. There were a few too many action sequences that probably could've been taken out. Even with that, still a good movie--Craig as Bond really makes up for a lot and Bardem is always greatNot as a good as Casino Royal, for sure. This Bond movie felt like several stories mashed together (or several scripts?), and though long, seemed to be missing the real character moments/buildup of stakes. There were a few too many action sequences that probably could've been taken out. Even with that, still a good movie--Craig as Bond really makes up for a lot and Bardem is always great to watch. Probably worth seeing a matinee for the special effects and cinematography--but it's not a must see. Expand
  21. Nov 16, 2012
    4
    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 allHm. 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
  22. Nov 13, 2012
    4
    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 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 areI 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
  23. 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
  24. Nov 9, 2012
    5
    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...
  25. Nov 13, 2012
    5
    Unsatisfactory and underwhelming. sadasdasdasdsadasdsadasafasfsdafsaasssdgsdsdgaasdfsdafdasfsadfasdfsadfsafasdfasdfasasfafafassadasdfsadsadfdaasfaafas
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
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.