Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 9, 2012
7.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1636 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,282
Mixed:
212
Negative:
142
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
5
dysonluNov 11, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. They had four years to write a good (if not brilliant) story but they failed miserably! The "pre-theme song" part was pretty good and promising but then it was disappointments one after another. Right after the theme song, you learn, which was a bit of a shock, that Bond is alive and well (was rescued by a hot unknown woman, had sex with her and decided to report back for duty). What a wasted opportunity for some good "come back" story. But no. He lost his aim (which he magically, all of a suddenly, finds back at some point during the movie) and was somewhat out of shape. But nothing of that will lead to any consequence whatsoever in the story. Essentially zero character development (the bad guy "Silver" (lame name) and the Bond girl -- which lady was the Bond girl anyway? What was her name again? Actually, there is NO Bond girl in this James Bond movie). So uninspired, no flair, no style, no class. No memorable location (Shanghai, Macau, oh sooo original!) No witty retort or remark by Bond, nor interesting dialog between any character of the movie. Oh and the bad guy dies with a knife in the back, presumably thrown by Bond. No fight, no nothing.

Note to hollywood: we have enough of the evil genius hacker who can control everything and do everything with his computer. It's just a lazy way to avoid explaining anything. He knows where this person is because he hacked into this computer. He controls that house's refrigerator because he hacked into this person's computer. PLEASE STOP THIS NON-SENSE!
Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
5
analogkid280Nov 12, 2012
I have to say I agree with the positive reviews and the negative reviews too. It is a good movie as long as you do not think too much about what you are watching. You also need to ignore all the commercials during the film. You need toI have to say I agree with the positive reviews and the negative reviews too. It is a good movie as long as you do not think too much about what you are watching. You also need to ignore all the commercials during the film. You need to disregard the plot devices that are inconsistent writing. Did they say uranium? Never mind you are going to watch this movie anyway just enjoy it and expect to take a nap for the last half hour of this 2 and a half hour long movie. Expand
13 of 24 users found this helpful1311
All this user's reviews
5
revilloNov 9, 2012
What are movie critics even for these days? This movie was about as good as Prometheus, one decent actor, some nifty special effects, and a total failure of the written word...
9 of 20 users found this helpful911
All this user's reviews
4
JamesCannonNov 11, 2012
rather mundane action movie, not sure why this had so many glowing reviews. I loss attention through most of the action sequences cause they just didnt have that punch to them that casino royale had, which is a far superior film than thisrather mundane action movie, not sure why this had so many glowing reviews. I loss attention through most of the action sequences cause they just didnt have that punch to them that casino royale had, which is a far superior film than this was. I miss the ol cheeky bond too, this is just way to serious and it even tries to be a little dark knightish, which it doesnt copy very well either. Expand
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
6
goldfox17Dec 3, 2012
don't know what movie those people claiming its the best bond yet where watching but it was not skyfall. well Skyfall does have its moments of that Bond felling it tends to go towards what you would expect a action pack CIA movie. rally usesdon't know what movie those people claiming its the best bond yet where watching but it was not skyfall. well Skyfall does have its moments of that Bond felling it tends to go towards what you would expect a action pack CIA movie. rally uses any gadgets and his big one is a gun! really a gun that only shoots if Bond holds it. lame. overall Id give this movie a 6 out of 10. if it did not have the bond title in it and was ratting it as far as action movies go I would give it an 8. good thing though is I think its the best out of the Craig bonds. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
TECfilmsNov 19, 2012
Hm, okay, there is something new in this Bond film, vut especially the ending sequence at "Skyfall" was unrealistic and much too similar to an average action movie. The villain seems unmotivated, certain actions are not comprehensible, andHm, okay, there is something new in this Bond film, vut especially the ending sequence at "Skyfall" was unrealistic and much too similar to an average action movie. The villain seems unmotivated, certain actions are not comprehensible, and then M's dead at the end, which destroys James' invulnerable image ... absolutely a matter of taste! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
DoctorFoxhoundNov 16, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Overall, Skyfall was enjoyable, visually stunning at times, and Daniel Craig continues to be a top-notch Bond. All of that being said, I was a little let down plot wise. I really, really liked Javier Bardem's character but was constantly disappointed with how the script played out his actions. He's a supposed cyber genius, and his mastermind plot was (at one point) to enter a major courthouse dressed as a cop and shoot it up with a glock and two goons? Also, I loved the idea of his character revealing 5 new agents a week (similar to the Joker's plan in the Dark Knight when he killed someone every day) but this part of the story was dropped completely! By the end, the townhouse "Homealone-esch" showdown really seemed forced to me. I like the idea of disarming Bond and leaving him with only a knife, a pistol, and his creativity but I really didn't understand why they couldn't at least call in for some undercover backup at the farmhouse and overall it just seemed like a pretty sketchy plan considering it was crafted by the head of M16 and one of her best agents...I went into this movie just wanting to enjoy a good Bond flick and ultimately I would say I did but throughout I was scratching my head at some of the plot choice and by the end couldn't help but feel a little letdown. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
mrbofusNov 9, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Based on reviews, I thought this movie would impress me and knock my socks off; and perhaps I walked in expecting too much, but I walked out thinking, "meh."

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

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

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

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

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

Anyways, those are just the big ones that stick out in my head. Those took me out of the movie and made me just wonder, "what the heck are these people doing?!" throughout most of the movie.
Expand
13 of 26 users found this helpful1313
All this user's reviews
4
MrLadyRatNov 10, 2012
It's a return to the classic, campy Bond movies. I didn't know that going in, and was disappointed when walking out.

A bad script sets the movie apart from it's two predecessors. Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace had such a rich, deep
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
6 of 10 users found this helpful64
All this user's reviews
6
emilyneedsafrieNov 10, 2012
Firstly, and this isn't a spoiler, but when James Bond and Kincaide are out practicing shooting, didn't Kincaide have two black labrador dogs by his side? You never saw them again - what happened to them? OK, summary - not the best JB movie,Firstly, and this isn't a spoiler, but when James Bond and Kincaide are out practicing shooting, didn't Kincaide have two black labrador dogs by his side? You never saw them again - what happened to them? OK, summary - not the best JB movie, but not the worst. It was more like a suspense movie with some action sequences thrown in, with the best one right at the beginning, which was outstanding - like "Taken 2", it seems that the rooftops in Istanbul are irresistible to goodies and baddies chasing each other either on foot or on motorbikes. It was a great scene and a great opening.

As for the film in general, there was WAY too much talking, way too much focus on M, in fact, it seemed more like a movie about HER with JB as her sidekick. Way too many closeups - we don't need to see their pores or every wrinkle - back up a little please, it didn't add anything to the movie, and if anything detracted from it. It was hard to believe this was a JB movie - I remember the days when it was FUN going to see a JB movie, you were taken out of your world, shown gadgets that were beyond your imagination, people were out to take over the world, and JB was the hero who was never affected by anything, maybe he got a few scrapes and bruises but he never got shot or tortured, he was always after the most beautiful girl in the room, and was, it seemed, invincible. THAT"S the JB I want to see - I don't want to be presented with a movie where they're trying to make him real, make the audience relate to him or understand him or feel sorry for him, or have him age (poorly I might add)0 - I want escapism, I want to know that a forever-youthful or at least non-aging JB will save the world and only have a scratch on his face for all his efforts, after using countless gadgets that we in the real world couldn't even dream of - and I think that these JB movies have lost their way in this regard. There were so many holes in this plot too - how did the villain escape out of that glass enclosure, for example? One minute he's in there, obviously more securely encased than Hannibel Lector in his cage - next thing he's out and free with two dead guards on the ground, and yet we don't know how he escaped. So poorly done. I was so disappointed that the grand finale was simply a gunfight - yes, a helicopter was involved and it was well filmed, but still - just a gun fight? Nothing clever or James Bondish or "MI6" ish at all - just guns and explosives, like any group of baddies in an action film - and throughout the film, the most exciting gadgets that were introduced were a gun that would only fire if JB held it (the handle was palm-print sensitive - but worse than that, it didn't blow up if someone else tried to fire it - all that happened was that it wouldn't work - I mean, how unimaginative is that?) and a small "radio" that gave off JB's location if he pressed a button. Futuristic? Creative? A gadget JB would be proud of? I think not. I must admit that the movie wasn't as bad as I thought it would be (after having read the pretty awful reviews), but as I already wrote, there was far too much talking, far too few action scenes and far too much focus on M. JB seemed to struggle in this, and yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah about him getting old, but we don't go to JB to see an aging actor or agent struggling to keep up - I'm going for some escapism! Some wild, fun excitement and a glimpse into a secret department that has top of the line weapons and gadgets to use against the forces of evil. I don't want to know that the best they can do is a palm-printed gun that only fires when JB holds it. I mean, come on, can't you do better than that?
I also must say that if I had seen it in a regular movie theater, I would have given it a 4 out of 10. I saw it in 2D at the Imax, with a massive screen and great sound - so that definitely added to it, which is why I gave it a 6. This was no JB movie to me, it was a suspense movie with some action shots, it didn't even have the same amount of action as a "Bourne Identity" type movie - there was some bad acting, too much talking (in case you missed that, there is a LOT of talking), very little in the way of thrills, too much focus on M, too many closeups, some amazing scenery, and Daniel Craig struggling to make it through. He tried, but I think it was very average. Next week I will have forgotten all about it. Heck, by tomorrow morning I will have forgotten about it. JB deserves better.
Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
Anosh_AhmadNov 11, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. How and why did it all go wrong? An unlikely choice for a director, who could've possibly brought some very gritty drama to the age old bond-film-reciepe (opinion based on his previous work):CHECK! 2 writers who wrote the best Bond film (Casino Royale) of the past decade: CHECK! An excellent DP and Sound Designer: CHECK! A good set of actors: CHECK! Then why o why o why? I'll just chart down the obvious and the potential shortcomings of the film:
1) Bond supposedly dies / consequently not in the best shape / alcohol abuse | an immense playground for the author..not capitalized.
2) Villain possesses the resources, the schematics and the cunningness to bring Mi6 down along with his one true target (i.e: M)| resorts to attempting assassination of his one true target with a 9mm.
3) M's betrayal of undercover agents | It was so infuriating that this was not utilized to somehow have an impact on Bond's loyalty.
4) M is threatened | Bond's Master Plan: hide in a remote house and lure the villain and his plethora of gunmen so that he can take them out, personally. Oh and the house had to be the one where Bond experienced his child hood (most irritatingly irrelevant) trauma; the death of his parents! Other senseless mistakes:
4) Bond girls were neither sexy nor interesting nor devious nor anything! ( :@ major flaw).
5) One bombing at the Mi6 headquarters | Mi6 forms an underground dwelling in London...no other bases.
6) I know someone has deemed it necessary for there to be a prodigious, skinny, **** tech geek in every detective drama these days and this movie was all about removing the age old garbage (pun)...but seriously...THAT GUY...as Q? --__--
7) TOO MANY CORNY ONE LINERS!! This fact was as infuriating and saddening as it was astonishing. I mean, after the Bourne Legacy..has'nt the crime action genre in Hollywood's cinema, shifted away from the cheesy B-grade film mechanics laid in the 70's? :S

This was just some of the steam I had to let out after watching this flick today. All in all...I would just say, it had so much potential and it was all wasted.
Expand
10 of 19 users found this helpful109
All this user's reviews
5
FireOccatorJul 16, 2016
Everything in this movie is mediocre. The soundtrack goes unnoticed. The villain is a boring, try hard, drama queen. Bond spends some time of the movie doing 007 stuff and then spends some time not caring. The storyline is filled with plotEverything in this movie is mediocre. The soundtrack goes unnoticed. The villain is a boring, try hard, drama queen. Bond spends some time of the movie doing 007 stuff and then spends some time not caring. The storyline is filled with plot holes and people even forget what started the main plot in the first place. One of the action scenes is filmed in the dark and probably done by stunt doubles. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
screenplayhouseNov 12, 2012
The hype on this Bond is embarrassing. I'm all about a more serious Bond with Sam Mendes at the helm. What I wanted was a clever spy story. What we instead get is a rehashing of great moments from other movies.

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

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

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

Where the Bond girl? The same place this script was. Up someone's arrogant myopic behind.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
caldepenNov 13, 2012
Good movie, just not a good Bond movie. The main protagonist (Bond) and antagonist (Silva/Bardem) are underwhelming. I want Bond to be a hero, not a drunken bum (who can oddly survive a crazy high fall into a creek) and I want Bond villain toGood movie, just not a good Bond movie. The main protagonist (Bond) and antagonist (Silva/Bardem) are underwhelming. I want Bond to be a hero, not a drunken bum (who can oddly survive a crazy high fall into a creek) and I want Bond villain to aspire to more than just silly revenge. It is however very well shot. This falls short of Bourne for me. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
Rob_ApplesNov 14, 2012
James Bond is back. Again. And to be quite frank I'm over it. 23 movies and we still see Bond doing his archetype Bond things. Oh look he ordered a martini. Hey look he's driving an Aston Martin. Is that a Walther PPK? He gambles. He wins. HeJames Bond is back. Again. And to be quite frank I'm over it. 23 movies and we still see Bond doing his archetype Bond things. Oh look he ordered a martini. Hey look he's driving an Aston Martin. Is that a Walther PPK? He gambles. He wins. He gets a typical Bond girl. Car chases, Foot chases. I mean for me it's all just been done before. It was really cool to see Bond reinvented in Casino Royal, but does every movie have to be the same formula? The only thing that set this one apart was the baddy. Javier Bardem practically single handedly saves this film from going into the annals of Bond failures such as Tomorrow Never Dies. Is it worth the watch? Yeah sure. Watch it for the action. But for old school Bond fans, I think I like my movies with a bit more Connery swagger. This one was shaken. Not stirred. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
GregRobinson800Nov 14, 2012
I wouldnt say it was the best Bond movie, however it is worth watching. I do hate when the audience is taken advantage of. Let me explain.. opening sequence is seriously flawed, and full of holes (including Bond!) However they writer/directerI wouldnt say it was the best Bond movie, however it is worth watching. I do hate when the audience is taken advantage of. Let me explain.. opening sequence is seriously flawed, and full of holes (including Bond!) However they writer/directer really made the ending quite obvious, and somewhat predictable. There are many positives however, Javier Bardem was quite good, and very unlikeable (clearly as most villains should be) I was let down however by the pace of the film. Quite long, and at times quiet and boring. Dame Denche is great as usual. Some complain about the re-introduction of the traditional bond elements.. as this was clearly and anniversary film, I think its quite appropriate... however, lets hope that's where it stops. Decent movie all around, but just not great. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
sky_has_fallenNov 23, 2012
Bond has been hit by a fallen meteor. Disappointing for a Bond film- strained and very unrealistic plot with another crazed unbelievable villain, But good on-location photography.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
MrHenleyNov 24, 2012
I really didn't enjoy Skyfall. Some elements were good, but I felt it was too bland. Basically Bourne but with a bit more class. Why must they cut out the cool gadgets / glamour? What drew me to Bond in the first place was the escapism andI really didn't enjoy Skyfall. Some elements were good, but I felt it was too bland. Basically Bourne but with a bit more class. Why must they cut out the cool gadgets / glamour? What drew me to Bond in the first place was the escapism and fantasy elements. This is too real world, too much like a stock standard action film. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
dickreesNov 27, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Anyone who believes this is a good Bond Movie is an Odd Job. And probably likes the musical 'We will Rock You'. Average action to open, silly effete bad guy (let's make him camp!) with lack of ambition and overbite, (didn't they used to want to take over the world?) washed down with a terrible clunky script. Why? - because it borrows so heavily from other films: Hannibal Lecter cage from Silence of the Lambs; shotguns and courduroy jackets and country from Bourne; dead parents from Harry Potter. Ridiculous dialogue: Albert Finney: "I was born ready!" - really! Silly denouement: Bardem arrives with heavies majically out of thin air and M has no security save for Bond who kills a helicopter with a calor gas cannister. No glamour, no charachter arc for sexy women - only M who completely forgets all her training and waves a bad guy in with a white hankie. No bad guy characters introduced around main Bardem charachter (no Odd Job) 'Ext. Skyfall - Night: Lots of bad guys wander down sepia tinted countryside looking for a tosser and his mum and a poacher so they can kill him. They all die in BBQ accident.'

Stupid and unsophisticated with schlocky ending that betrays Bond cool. His parents grave - and mum named Delacroix - and what -what- what! Stupid moments: Bond chasing Bardem in Z Cars outfit and crashing train pointlessly into underground. This is not a Bond Movie. It's a Blonde movie made by people with a schedule. Skyfall House - that really made me laugh... as if.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
shineonsunfishNov 29, 2012
Really disappointed. The first two movies of this rebooted franchise were both excellent. They took place during an understandable time period, with a gritty and realistic Bond who had just been promoted to 007 status. He wasn't chatty,Really disappointed. The first two movies of this rebooted franchise were both excellent. They took place during an understandable time period, with a gritty and realistic Bond who had just been promoted to 007 status. He wasn't chatty, and we didn't care - his steely gaze and quick wit (not to be mistaken for quips - just watch Casino Royale's first scene with Vesper and you'll be able to tell the difference) told us that he was a man with a past. A past that he had no interest in divulging. We were treated to beautiful women (who were given character and personality), dry martinis, perfectly fitted tuxedos, and a sinister Bilderberg type group of powerful people controlling society from within. Flash ahead to Skyfall - Bond looks a good 15 years older, and is in the middle of a random assignment that leaves no resolution to the plot of the first two films. The first two films started with bone-achingly real foot chases through exotic locales. This one had a motorbike jumping onto a moving train. The villains in the first two movies were a terrorist banker and a philanthropist with sinister goals. This one is your typical mincing crazy person with a funny accent (homophobic, xenophobic, AND quite silly all in one, not that it's the actor's fault.) The first films included several types of women (all very beautiful, this is a Bond movie after all), who had varying relationships with Bond. This one had a young 007 agent whose ineptitude at her job ends with her taking the role of a secretary, and an abused sex slave who is questionably seduced and summarily executed and treated like a piece of trash (the horrific "waste of a good scotch" quip is inexcusable). Honestly, "it's a Bond movie, what did you expect" has no place in this conversation - I expected what I was led to expect from the first two movies of the reboot. A gritty, realistic, badass James Bond. Not someone quipping or using silly gadgets or having rapey scenes with random chicks. I am not an original James Bond fan. I don't care what they did in 1962 - that image of the swinging playboy is no longer relevant to this generation. And this movie tried so hard to be relevant, with it's cheap terrorism plot. And the last 30 minutes, while they had great action sequences taken out of context, made no sense to a larger plot, and awkwardly tried to shove in a very stupid and cliched past to Bond's life. The climactic scene left me feeling nothing, because there had been no foundation laid for any emotion regarding that character. And it dragged quite a bit - there's no reason for an action movie to be more than 2 hours long.

That being said, it certainly wasn't all bad. After the initial silliness of the motorbike chase, the fight atop the train was excellent. The entire scene in Shanghai was also done very well, and the actress playing Severine did a very good job with what was ultimately a very stupid role. The lighting was quite remarkable in the whole movie, and Javier Bardem did his best to infuse a traditional silly Bond villain with some pathos. The choice to make Q young was nice (even though he was painfully stupid for being such a computer whiz), and if they hadn't hit the theme quite so hard, it would have been nice to compare the old world vs. the new world through James Bond's eyes. And the courtroom scene was very enjoyable and tense, even though it was a bit silly after all the convoluted planning from Bardem. Unfortunately, this film felt out of context with the other two, putting the time frame oddly late and seeming to be either the end of a series or the beginning of a new one. Some huge gaps of logic in the needlessly silly plot make this definitely the worst Bond movie of the three, and independent of the series it was an extremely mediocre action flick.
Expand
10 of 13 users found this helpful103
All this user's reviews
5
mansellNov 30, 2012
Disappointing. Loved Casino Royale 's realism, but this was like watching a Batman movie with an arch villain and bumbling Secret Service except for Bond.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
joie2Dec 14, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfall had some good bits, but a lot of problems. The "aging Bond" aspect of the film didn't work for me because we all know that Bond is effectively a permanently young and handsome character, thanks to the miracle of casting. Besides, it's been done before (in Never Say Never?). The scale of the movie didn't work for me either -- "Skyfall" is such a grandiose name that it should have been an international scheme, not Bond's dismal childhood manse. And the "revenge on M" motivation fell flat. Bond villains should want to take over the world, get rich, or both. I also disliked the movie's midway morph into Home Alone. How tedious. Finally, I was offended by the homophobia implicit in the depiction of the villain. What will the next Bond film bring us -- a greedy Jew? Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
FrankCassioDec 20, 2012
For all the money they had to make this film they should have done better. Daniel Craig lacks any style or depth and comes across as low IQ which I sure is not the intent. The start is very very good but then it gets lost. the raid on theFor all the money they had to make this film they should have done better. Daniel Craig lacks any style or depth and comes across as low IQ which I sure is not the intent. The start is very very good but then it gets lost. the raid on the house is so unreal its sad. sure its entertaining but at that budget - we deserve more. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
KnackeringhamDec 24, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I didn't know it was a Bond film I would have enjoyed it more. There was no 'light and shade' as in previous Bond movies. It was all too dark. What happened to the suave sophistication that Bond exudes...always 100% sure of himself. There were no 'tongue in cheek' snippets that always was a sign of a good Bond film. I missed the inventive gadgets that Q would provide. It was though the writers were trying to destroy the franchise by blowing up the Aston Martin and revealing Bonds past. Why destroy the mystique of Bond? I hope they return to the old format. There will always be plenty of Bourne Identities. Sorry 5/10. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
mvh888Jan 2, 2013
After watching skyfall I felt like having worked for an enitre day, it just took far too long. It'd be better it'd be shortened by an hour. The acting wasn't bad and stuff. Actually there was nothing which was like really bad but everythingAfter watching skyfall I felt like having worked for an enitre day, it just took far too long. It'd be better it'd be shortened by an hour. The acting wasn't bad and stuff. Actually there was nothing which was like really bad but everything also was not good. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
madeleineJan 11, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Some great action scenes are the only distinguishing feature. Otherwise, far too much product placement and a plot which revises GoldenEye with its agent turned villain after harsh treatment by his spymasters (Bardem phones in his performance and counts the cash, and good luck to him). The whole thing could have been rescued for me if Silva had killed M and himself in the chapel, with Bond arriving just in time to witness it. Now that would have been a movie! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
Mr_MuumiFeb 18, 2013
You have to review the Bond movies within their context. As such, Skyfall is by means not bad one. There is something new and something familiar to keep both old and new fans watching. When you are going to see a any James Bond movie youYou have to review the Bond movies within their context. As such, Skyfall is by means not bad one. There is something new and something familiar to keep both old and new fans watching. When you are going to see a any James Bond movie you pretty much know what to expect and Skyfall delivers exactly this. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
NathonasDec 6, 2015
The film starts out with a lot of promise but quickly goes downhill once the villain is introduced. The end sequence in particular makes zero sense and feels completely out of place.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ExKingMay 19, 2013
skyfall makes a good impression as a James bond movie it has all the qualities of being a good movie you have the picture the lightening the costumes and the fact that it is not memorable.
the first thing you notice about it is the good
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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
GamingGuru365Jun 1, 2013
Skyfall is a long, tedious, and extremely boring movie that has little to no emotional impact on the viewer. It didn't linger with me after I watched it because the whole thing just felt like a massive cliche. The only things that saved thisSkyfall is a long, tedious, and extremely boring movie that has little to no emotional impact on the viewer. It didn't linger with me after I watched it because the whole thing just felt like a massive cliche. The only things that saved this movie were the action sequences and the grounds keeper who helped out Bond more than Bond helped himself. Also, he was probably the only likable person in the whole movie. Seriously, why is Bond the least interesting person in the film? How did the writers even manage to do that in a JAMES BOND movie?They even managed to make Javier Bardem (who was an excellent villain in No Country for Old Men) into a lame attempt at ripping of Joker!
It may seem like I hate this movie, but I actually thought it was not a terrible movie. It's a solid action flick if you turn your brain off. But, it's nothing more than that. People who say that this is the best Bond ever need to see a proctologist and get their head removed from their own a--.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews