Skyfall

User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1627 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 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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...
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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. Expand
  8. Nov 13, 2012
    5
    Unsatisfactory and underwhelming. sadasdasdasdsadasdsadasafasfsdafsaasssdgsdsdgaasdfsdafdasfsadfasdfsadfsafasdfasdfasasfafafassadasdfsadsadfdaasfaafas
  9. Nov 8, 2015
    5
    Not the best James Bond film, but with a great first 30 minutes, it delivers. I've actually seen this before Spectre, though I put my review later. I loved Spectre, and I thought this one was a little more boring, but still fun. The action sequences are the same as before, but the first 30 minutes is what the movie should have been like. Also, the ending was fine, just too long.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Nov 7, 2015
    6
    Well, in 2015 this web-site told me that this movie is 'new or notable' so I decided to write a review. It's not good. There're so many movies about 007 (LOTS) that I'd rather call it cliche than something new. Not good at all.
  19. Nov 7, 2015
    4
    Del montón, simplemente. Tanto bombo,tanta soplagaitez, para esto. Una pelicula dirigida en plan "uh uh vamos a imitar a Nolan que esta de moda" y simplemente es eso una moda.

    Me gusto bastante el rollo que se cascaron con Casino Royale, que junto con Goldeneye, es de las mejores de James Bond, darle un toque mas real y mas actual a Bond sin violar sus origenes, con Quantum por culpa de
    Del montón, simplemente. Tanto bombo,tanta soplagaitez, para esto. Una pelicula dirigida en plan "uh uh vamos a imitar a Nolan que esta de moda" y simplemente es eso una moda.

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

    Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

    Mediocridad Sobrevalorada
    Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. Nov 5, 2015
    5
    Casino Royale is my favorite James Bond film. I place From Russia With Love in second place. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

    Skyfall disappointed me. The biggest reason for this is that the bad guy's motivation just didn't make much sense at all. It was the opposite of the motivation in the precise and focused plot of Casino Royale. Then there were the little moments that soured
    Casino Royale is my favorite James Bond film. I place From Russia With Love in second place. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

    Skyfall disappointed me. The biggest reason for this is that the bad guy's motivation just didn't make much sense at all. It was the opposite of the motivation in the precise and focused plot of Casino Royale. Then there were the little moments that soured me on it. Here's a few, without giving spoilers of any significance. Bond is after a bad guy. Just before he attacks the bad guy, the bad guy shoots someone. Bond could have stopped him, but didn't. Bond stands by without a care in the world as the man commits murder. And the moment after that, Bond goes after the guy. It makes no sense. He would have attacked just before. He may not be a saint but Bond as Craig has defined him (until that moment) wouldn't let an innocent person be killed that way. Next thing. Bond tells a woman he's going to rescue her from being a sex slave (forced prostitute) if she helps him with his mission. When he shows up at her place, she's in the shower. She doesn't see him. He gets naked and surprises her in the shower - they presumably have sex. This is a woman he's had exactly one conversation with in a public place. So let's recap that logic. He's going to rescue her from sexual slavery but first he pops in naked for a quickie. Anyone other than me disturbed by that? It's freaking creepy as he!!. This isn't some Bond girl he's flirted with. This is a chronic victim of rape. OK. Next thing. In one scenes he's capture but he brings in the cavalry by virtue of a hidden radio transponder in his jacket transmitting his location. Really? Couldn't he have done this with an iPhone? The radio transponder is one of Q's special gadgets, as if we live in the year 1962. It's ridiculous. And why wasn't he searched when he was captured? It would have been found. So disappointing.
    Expand
  29. 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
  30. Jul 16, 2016
    5
    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 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.
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.