User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1396 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. Jan 15, 2013
    10
    As a huge Bond-fan, especially of the last three, I thought this was by far the best ever. The amazing pictures, the fantastic bad guy and the great new additions to the cast, the entertaining story and above all the fabulous Daniel Craig who nails his role even better then in the previous 2 parts. And, girls, Daniel Craig is just hot! With just a towel around his hips it's difficult toAs a huge Bond-fan, especially of the last three, I thought this was by far the best ever. The amazing pictures, the fantastic bad guy and the great new additions to the cast, the entertaining story and above all the fabulous Daniel Craig who nails his role even better then in the previous 2 parts. And, girls, Daniel Craig is just hot! With just a towel around his hips it's difficult to focus on the movie so I went to see this movie for three times in the cinema now and still I could see it again. Expand
  2. Dec 23, 2012
    9
    Even if "Skyfall" lacking the classic Bond energy is a minor imperfection, it is a blemish on an action film masterpiece that is a fast-paced, emotionally charged and iconic thriller that defines itself proudly as not only one of the best action films ever, but one of the best Bond films ever - and this is appropriate, seeing that Daniel Craig is the (second) best Bond ever.
  3. Nov 11, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Not the WORST James Bond but definitely not a good one. The writers really missed the mark on this one. James Bond's apparent death at the beginning of the film was not woven deep enough into the story. The missing MI6 agent roster really had no impact on the plot. The villains character was so irrational and illogical even for a James Bond movie. Now, I have to say I like Daniel Craig. He won me over when I saw Casino Royal and it proves he's better than this. If you pay close attention, the director has bond awkwardly standing and "taking in the view" while remaining all tough. He literally just stand there like an emotionless statue for the greater part of the film. LET THE MAN ACT! Create more interesting dialog! Allow a script to have reasonable action sequences! I like the updated: cold, hard, ruthless, willing to do anything to get the job done James Bond, but come on! It has to be a little dynamic. As an audience we need some way to "bond" with the character. You can tell they attempted to do this by trying to fill in a lot James Bond's past but ultimately failed (unneeded for plot). I didn't really feel like we needed to be introduced to James Bond's dead family, nor did we need to see his family's mansion from which he uses "Home Alone" tactics to repel the world worst assault force led by the worlds corniest bad guy. James Bond does need to be "re-vamped" but it needs to be done in the writing/directing department. It's a shame that after 4 years this is the best product they could produce. Heck, I'm even considering writing a James Bond screenplay after seeing how far off the mark these guys are. OH! I gave it a "3" because "M" is fiiiinnnnnnalllllllyyyyy getting replaced and the fact that this movie wasn't "Tomorrow Never Dies" which deserves a "0" in everyones book and should NEVER be shown to a public audience. Thanks for taking the time to read my ranting. Expand
  4. Nov 20, 2012
    3
    What can I say?! Like many, Im a Bond fan...but cannot understand how the 'media' has put this latest Bond movie in the same league as Goldfinger? The introductory action scene was good; the shot to Bond and his presumed death added a twist, but from then on it was flatter than than the cinema cola I was drinking!! What on earth have the directors and producers created?! The story line wasWhat can I say?! Like many, Im a Bond fan...but cannot understand how the 'media' has put this latest Bond movie in the same league as Goldfinger? The introductory action scene was good; the shot to Bond and his presumed death added a twist, but from then on it was flatter than than the cinema cola I was drinking!! What on earth have the directors and producers created?! The story line was so weak it was painful...the Villan was an ex MI6 agent who was 'betrayed' by his Boss (M) and was now plotting on her downfall and death via cybercrime and access to a hardrive (from another MI6 agent) carrying data of all western secret agents...come on!!! Bond is here to settle a personal vendetta of an ex agent and his Boss?! With all that is going on in the world today, is this the best that can be done (even when being politically correct)! The various action scenes-Shanghai & Macau did not have substance. they came and went without a real reason. the Bond girls could not even be called that...their roles where so short. The gadgets and cars were non existant...Daniel Craig was good. He is looking alittle old and ragged, and feel this should be his last film as 007. The whole film was a a mixture of many films (Borne Identity, MI 1, Harry Potter, etc...). Personally I feel Mr Mendes has done a very poor job here, he was hired to do something different with Bond, but ended up making a real mess...Probably the worst Bond film ever made....even Timothy Dalton's two films were better...the 3 marks I give to Daniel Craig, for trying his best, Villain's Camp hairdo, and M's death....Utterly disappointed and disallusioned about the future of the 007............ Expand
  5. Nov 17, 2012
    3
    This movie, like Heineken beer, leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Skyfall's version of Bond is so cold and lacking in charm that he will likely inspire your contempt rather than your sympathy. Javier Bardem is nowhere near as scary as he was in No Country for Old Men, but that's not his fault- the part is just poorly written. Gone are the witty one liners so famously associated with theThis movie, like Heineken beer, leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Skyfall's version of Bond is so cold and lacking in charm that he will likely inspire your contempt rather than your sympathy. Javier Bardem is nowhere near as scary as he was in No Country for Old Men, but that's not his fault- the part is just poorly written. Gone are the witty one liners so famously associated with the series. I can recall laughing twice during the entirety of this film. Bond movies need to have a good sense of humor, which you won't find here. On the romantic front, things are equally grim: there is no chemistry between Craig and his legion of shallow female sidekicks. This is partly because the script sucks, but it's also because Daniel Craig is just downright ugly, pardon the crassness. He is not easy on the eyes. I'm glad this is his last Bond movie, to be honest. I think Michael Fassbender could play the kind of Bond this series needs in order to get back on track. I found myself feeling quite bored for the majority of the movie. Strange that such an explosive action movie would be so devoid of intrigue and suspense. I'll give it a three for the gorgeous title sequence and Roger Deakins' photography. Expand
  6. 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
  7. Nov 9, 2012
    7
    Bond simply can't avoid falling back to old cliches if the script doesn't offer smarter opportunities, and the story is rather simple overall. But the cinematography is great, the action breathtaking, the acting fabulous and Javier Bardem gives one of the more original (and personal) villains of any Bond movie. Not as good as "Casino Royal", but one of his better films.
  8. Nov 10, 2012
    1
    If you have insomnia, Skyfall will cure you fast. On the other hand, if you just want to eat popcorn, you had better take a couple tablets of No Doze to last it out. If you don't mind that the Old Bag "M" plays a huge part, that the flat-chested heroine plays a big part, and that the only other woman can't act and looks like a vampire, then this movie is for you.
  9. Feb 6, 2013
    4
    Like many, I am in disbelief at the popularity of Skyfall. I found it simplistic, dull, sloppy and "cheap". Only the first 45 minutes I enjoyed really, and even then I didn't find it a patch on other more modern Bond movies like Casino, Quantum or GoldenEye.

    Clearly many people liked it, but it is most certainly not for me.
  10. Nov 26, 2012
    9
    Skyfall is my favorite Bond film thus far. I never was a big fan of the older Bond movies, but have thoroughly enjoyed the Bronson and Craig iterations. I like the direction the Daniel Craig ones have taken as far as leaving the cheesy gadgets behind in favor of a more rugged, physical Bond. I was a bit nervous with the way Skyfall started as there were several differentSkyfall is my favorite Bond film thus far. I never was a big fan of the older Bond movies, but have thoroughly enjoyed the Bronson and Craig iterations. I like the direction the Daniel Craig ones have taken as far as leaving the cheesy gadgets behind in favor of a more rugged, physical Bond. I was a bit nervous with the way Skyfall started as there were several different actions/reactions that pulled me out of the action sequence. However, as it calmed down and started to introduce the main villain I was reassured. Javier Bardem was the highlight of Skyfall and I consider him to be the best Bond villain to date. His menacing, cerebral nature was more scary and intimidating than any other Bond villain plotting to rule the world. Despite having the knowledge and technology to wreck huge havoc on the world, Bardem's plan is more local and revenge driven (a much more interesting approach). Learning more about Bond's past was nice but nothing earth-shattering since it came off as the already done Bruce Wayne type of story. However, it was all executed convincingly and Daniel Craig does a great job as a broken but still very deadly Bond. Like the movies underlining story of "This Old Dog still has Bite", Skyfall proves that the 23rd Bond movie can still pack a punch and bring something new and entertaining to the table. In a sense, I wish this would be the last Bond movie since it was so fitting for a conclusion, but we all know there will be more and lets just hope they'll be as good as this one was. 9/10 Expand
  11. 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
  12. Nov 10, 2012
    4
    It's a return to the classic, campy Bond movies. I didn't know that going in, and was disappointed when walking out.

    A bad script sets the movie apart from it's two predecessors. Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace had such a rich, deep storyline, where characters had intricacies, and separate stories of their own. Skyfall is missing this. I love the classic Bond movies, and think
    It's a return to the classic, campy Bond movies. I didn't know that going in, and was disappointed when walking out.

    A bad script sets the movie apart from it's two predecessors. Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace had such a rich, deep storyline, where characters had intricacies, and separate stories of their own. Skyfall is missing this.

    I love the classic Bond movies, and think that this movie is very much in line with those. With that said, my reasoning for such a harsh rating is that the previous two movies had taken Bond in such a vibrant direction, and it is so disappointing to see the series regress.
    Expand
  13. 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
  14. Nov 9, 2012
    8
    $10 to see this $200M movie? Count me in. A super fun long opening action sequence. Gorgeous tailored clothing. Beautiful cinematography. Attractive people. A sensible character backstory and motivation. High tech. Low tech. Retro tech. About 50 amazing set pieces.

    And James Bond fixing his cuff length after jumping from a crane onto a moving train.
  15. Nov 15, 2012
    0
    What the **** did i just watch???? I' was looking forward to watching 'the Best Bond movie yet!' well **** me, i bought into the b.s. hype and critic reviews again. Silly me. This is the worst James Bond movie ever made...It just sucks the soul out of the franchise...my mind has been blown by how bad this movie was....and this movie has been receiving so much praise since release?!What the **** did i just watch???? I' was looking forward to watching 'the Best Bond movie yet!' well **** me, i bought into the b.s. hype and critic reviews again. Silly me. This is the worst James Bond movie ever made...It just sucks the soul out of the franchise...my mind has been blown by how bad this movie was....and this movie has been receiving so much praise since release?! seriously what the **** is wrong with people nowadays??? Is it really hard to think for yourself???. This movie set the nail in the coffin for me...I'm certain now that movie companies really believe people are dumb as hell and they can make the crappiest movie ever but as long as they advertise it as the best thing since slice bread, it will sell. Everything nowadays is so hyped up, you almost are always consistently disappointed with the final product yet people are so brainwashed and ashamed they bought into it, they can't admit they've just been duped :( **** is ****ing sad...i mean just admit the movie was **** and spare the rest of us. At least there's still some people out there who can see past the b.s. thank ****ing god...anyways this is just another reminder why I haven't been watching movies lately. I'll stick to my videogames thank you very much. Expand
  16. Nov 11, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. How and why did it all go wrong? An unlikely choice for a director, who could've possibly brought some very gritty drama to the age old bond-film-reciepe (opinion based on his previous work):CHECK! 2 writers who wrote the best Bond film (Casino Royale) of the past decade: CHECK! An excellent DP and Sound Designer: CHECK! A good set of actors: CHECK! Then why o why o why? I'll just chart down the obvious and the potential shortcomings of the film:
    1) Bond supposedly dies / consequently not in the best shape / alcohol abuse | an immense playground for the author..not capitalized.
    2) Villain possesses the resources, the schematics and the cunningness to bring Mi6 down along with his one true target (i.e: M)| resorts to attempting assassination of his one true target with a 9mm.
    3) M's betrayal of undercover agents | It was so infuriating that this was not utilized to somehow have an impact on Bond's loyalty.
    4) M is threatened | Bond's Master Plan: hide in a remote house and lure the villain and his plethora of gunmen so that he can take them out, personally. Oh and the house had to be the one where Bond experienced his child hood (most irritatingly irrelevant) trauma; the death of his parents! Other senseless mistakes:
    4) Bond girls were neither sexy nor interesting nor devious nor anything! ( :@ major flaw).
    5) One bombing at the Mi6 headquarters | Mi6 forms an underground dwelling in London...no other bases.
    6) I know someone has deemed it necessary for there to be a prodigious, skinny, **** tech geek in every detective drama these days and this movie was all about removing the age old garbage (pun)...but seriously...THAT GUY...as Q? --__--
    7) TOO MANY CORNY ONE LINERS!! This fact was as infuriating and saddening as it was astonishing. I mean, after the Bourne Legacy..has'nt the crime action genre in Hollywood's cinema, shifted away from the cheesy B-grade film mechanics laid in the 70's? :S

    This was just some of the steam I had to let out after watching this flick today. All in all...I would just say, it had so much potential and it was all wasted.
    Expand
  17. Nov 10, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. let me start off by saying I love james bond so much!!! I think craig is great in casino and quantum of solace. But this movie was so bad here is why.

    the villain was about as scary as an employee of a mac store.

    the new Q looks like an indie rocker groupie bond doesn't have his new dbs Austin martin.

    bond has a very weird shower scene he just shows up in there naked with out saying anything.

    then the french bond girl has 4 lines then dies by a bet with whiskey and one shot

    a large kamoto dragon saves bonds life by eatting a large Asian man

    for 5 mins bond stares at London then for 10 mins he stares and walks around Scotland with nothing going on.

    they play home alone in a old mansion for about 30 min built in the middle of no where. I mean they put shotgun shots under the floor boards and little grenades in the light fixtures. I was expecting to see 5 gallon paint cans hit people in the face. This is was the biggest let down in the theaters I've ever had. Don't believe the hype. The best thing I can say is I used free tickets to see this!!! SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!
    Expand
  18. Nov 14, 2012
    1
    Man, they **** it up. The one point I give it is for Roger Deakins, who delivers some gorgeous cinematography (especially in Shanghai). Otherwise, an unbearable, intellectually lazy and ultimately silly endeavor. The reverse Pieta ending, in a church no less, sealed the deal: this film is beyond redemption.
  19. Nov 11, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfall might be the most un-Bond film in the series. There are little to none of the classic Bond tropes (gadgets, girls). in their place the movie is filled with personal issues and M being pushed out. The villain has the most small-potatoes plan of all the Bond villains. Still, the movie didn't entirely lose me until the final act where Bond and M hide out in his family's old Scotland home. At this point the movie took a big turn for the worse. The final act boiling down to a Straw Dogs/Home Alone type home defense scenario that is just boring and completely unoriginal. Setting aside plot holes, of which there are a number, this movie just left me scratching my head. After setting up a mysterious syndicate hiding in the shadows in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, this movie doesn't even make one mention of what had been built up in the previous two Craig movies. I just don't understand where they were going with this movie other than to just slap something together to introduce new actors in the roles of M, Q, and Moneypenny. The movie is overlong and spends too much time dealing with things that feel more like they came out of a Bourne movie. I had high hopes for this movie, but if Skyfall is the best we can get after 4 years, I think this franchise is going to get stale again pretty fast. Overall the movie isn't unwatchable, it is just not a Bond movie. There are some cool action sequences and Bardem isn't bad as the villain, but he doesn't have much to work with. Skip this one until it hits video. Expand
  20. Nov 17, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Once the credits roll, you will have only one question - why did that stupid b*tch not aim for his head and kill Bond for good. For me, he most certainly IS dead. Expand
  21. Nov 10, 2012
    7
    Look I'm NLT the biggest James Bond fan in the world, but I don't know why this film is getting praised. The first half is slow and dare I say almost somewhat boring, and the motivations of some characters are left unexplained. Also, and this may be me griping, but if Bond wasn't superhuman or a bad guy could hit a target, the movie would be over in 10 minutes. Still entertaining and anLook I'm NLT the biggest James Bond fan in the world, but I don't know why this film is getting praised. The first half is slow and dare I say almost somewhat boring, and the motivations of some characters are left unexplained. Also, and this may be me griping, but if Bond wasn't superhuman or a bad guy could hit a target, the movie would be over in 10 minutes. Still entertaining and an improvement over Quantum, though. Expand
  22. Nov 12, 2012
    5
    Skyfall, as all James Bond films have, this one also is trending around. The film even loved the product prices by 0,07%. However, can the 007 recover from it's horrible video game prequels?___ I will begin with the good stuff. First of all, great Bond character by Daniel Craig. I just wish his story in the film, had not began with a gigantic plot-hole. The camera work is smooth and theSkyfall, as all James Bond films have, this one also is trending around. The film even loved the product prices by 0,07%. However, can the 007 recover from it's horrible video game prequels?___ I will begin with the good stuff. First of all, great Bond character by Daniel Craig. I just wish his story in the film, had not began with a gigantic plot-hole. The camera work is smooth and the action scenes cannot be ignored. Also the humour is still there.___ Now, sadly, the longest part of the review. The bad stuff. The main plot is an unsuccessful depiction of modern communication and it's roll in war on terror. We also have M, who keeps messing up in every James Bond film. The annoying plot-holes and M's ''smart'' decisions aren't even close to the main villain of this year's film. Behold, a walking plot-hole that has just escaped from a mental facility, Raoul Silva! A villain's first appearance is important... as is his two minutes walk towards Bond, that makes you fall asleep. This guy truly can predict anything and I mean ANYTHING. Whatever he touches immediately turns into a plot-hole. Everything he does is by style, that screws up every plan, at the last second. The creators even removed a scene, so they could hide this man's plot-hole skills.___ Overall the film is mediocre. I just wonder what other villains are brewing in the next 007 film and what storyline are we going to experience next, hopefully better than this one. Collapse
  23. Nov 14, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Stop calling it the best Bond film ever! (Minor Spoilers)

    Regardless of whether you think this film is good this film simply isn't the best Bond film ever. In fact, it's not really even Bond. Yes, Daniel Craig is a great choice for Bond I fully agree. Casino Royal is second only to classics like Goldfinger, and Quantum is not as hopeless as the public at large would have you believe. The elephant in the room with Skyfall is the storytelling. Ian Flemming's series of novels creates a world for Bond that is incredibly rich, detailed and logical. Sure at times, it requires suspension of disbelief, but not in an absolute way like a comic book or sci-fi film forces a viewer to do. The true pearls of the Bond series are the films that are tethered in some way to reality. Skyfall Bond is obviously not original content, but no attempt was made to reconcile the character or story with the original intentions of the author. If you have a deep appreciation of the literary character or a complete knowledge of the film series, you are much less likely to enjoy this movie because the plot does not regard the essence of Bond.

    I'm shocked that fewer critics have pointed out Skyfall's SHOCKINGLY lazy and poorly executed storytelling. One example, right from the start that I think conveys what I mean:

    The first scene, Bond is shot twice including by a military grade sniper rifle. He falls what appears to be 100 meters straight on his back. HOW DID HE SURVIVE? Why does he only have the 9mm shrapnel/wound with his shirt off? To me a masterpiece, or even a decent movie, simply cannot leave points like that (and literally a dozen other major plot gaps for which 'hacking' is the silver bullet) unresolved. Bond is not invincible, he's actually quite vulnerable in the novels. A Bond vehicle cannot invoke suspension of disbelief so outrageously and then expect me to take it seriously. Casino Royal (and many older films in the series) proved that Bond doesn't need to have superhero powers. They can tell a great story, include quality action and obey some basic principles of reality. A Bond story that enters a world so completely devoid of the governing principles of reality is the ultimate copout and at fundamentally not Bond.

    Again, non-Bond fans are entitled to say it's a great movie. But it is really asinine to make statements to the effect of 'Best Bond Ever'. Watch all 23. Read one of the books. People would be outraged if Lord of the Rings didn't respect the vision of Tolkien, so why is it different with Flemming?
    Expand
  24. Nov 12, 2012
    1
    The plot was quite dark and the movie seemed to drag on too long. Darkness is ok to an extent but there was very little that was fun or even interesting in the movie; not even many interesting gadgets that previous Bond movies typically include. I like Daniel Craig, but this is clearly the worst of the Craig series of Bond movies. I won't recommend any family or friends go see this movie.
  25. Nov 14, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In a word, disappointing. Javier Bardem's character had the potential to be one of the most memorable villains in the franchise. After his introduction you really felt this was going to get good. Smart, charismatic, and the resources to take over the world. Instead we get this creepy guy's confusing witch hunt to kill M (? Why not just blow her up??). Just bizarre that we are expected to root for characters like Bond and M, when we literally have no reason to. He's a dick and she's a **** The hot bond girl featured in all the commercials has like a 10 minute spot. Where is the evil Bond girl? As people here have already stated, if this wasn't a Bond movie it would be alright. I could buy the betrayal, revenge plot but as a Bond movie it was missing almost every ingredient. Finally, my ears are still bleeding from that awful intro song. Expand
  26. MB_
    Nov 25, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Why didn't the badguy just kill Q at home or when he exploded her headquarters? Why didn't Bond ask for a doctor to remove the fragments rather than using a knife and his left hand? Why didn't the bad guy just kill bond, what did he want him for? Why didn't they just hide in the tunnel as the bad guy didn't know it existed? Why did the priest hole lead to no where? Why did Bond walk over the ice when everyone else went around? Where did the ice henchman appear from? Why did Q plug the bad guy's PC into the network rather than an isolated PC? Why did they lock the badguy in a glass room which is locked electronically rather than just use a padlock? When did Bond set off the radio beacon on the island and why didn't the electronics mastermind badguy not have him checked? When did the badguy put the explosives on the roof of the chamber letting the train through, wouldn't he have used his time better, running away? Why didn't they just withdraw all the at risk agents? Why didn't bond shoot him at any point, he'd be tortured for months by the Chinese why would he talk to them? Why was there more screen time dedicated to Judi Dench than for Daniel Craig? Why did bond's face change from Brosnan to Craig yet M's is still Dench? Why would you cut up a perfectly good opening action scene to an old woman moaning in an office ever 30 seconds? Can I get a refund? Expand
  27. Nov 29, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The worst of the Daniel Craig James Bond films. The treadbare plot seems designed so specifically to kill off Judi Dench's character that I wonder if she wanted out. It could have been interesting, but it wasn't. Javier Bardem's flamboyant gay super-genius-criminal-mastermind was decidedly unrealistic in every way. The parts in all the trailers where James Bond gets shot? He comes back 5 minutes later after apparently living in some Caribbean paradise for three weeks and has lost all his skills. But don't worry, it doesn't make any difference at all. He still kills all the baddies (despite not being able to shoot accurately) and manages to hold on to an elevator that ascends a high-rise building (despite failing all his physical exams). In fact, ALL the best bits from the trailers have zero relevance to the film. The word association clip? Zero relevance. Bond's "death"? Zero relevance. "Skyfall"? Zero relevance. This sort of shoddy writing makes you wonder how easy it is to get a job in Hollywood, because clearly no skill is required. The production is obviously very expensive, and the pace slow. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it wasn't a crap film. Alas. But it doesn't end there. The name of the film: Skyfall? Sounds interesting, huh? It has absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the film (the final location is a property named "Skyfall" that apparently Bond's parents owned) which is functionally pointless other than being a cool film name. Traditionally, James Bond films have had outlandish plots: that's part of the franchise. Moonraker had a evil genius stealing satellites; Casino Royale pinned the fate of the free world on a game of Texan Hold 'em poker; GoldenEye had a space laser. Skyfall has an insipid title track by Adele, a lame villain, and a lifeless, dull plot. This was supposed to be the 50th anniversary. What an insult. Expand
  28. Dec 8, 2012
    0
    WOW and to think I thought Lincoln was a little long and boring.......
    the critics high point reviews are an insult to us all...
    I'm really trying to think of some positives:
    Adele, the moto scene (whole movie downhill from there)
    thats it. thats all I can think of. oh yeah : it was good looking at times.
  29. 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
  30. Nov 23, 2012
    10
    As a major Bond fan of Fleming's books and the films, Skyfall to some is the twenty-third film in the EON films, and to others, the twenty-sixth film counting all spin-offs of the series. But in reality, Skyfall is the third film in a whole new series that began with the masterpiece Casino Royale and continued with Quantum of Solace. Together, all three of these films seems more like anAs a major Bond fan of Fleming's books and the films, Skyfall to some is the twenty-third film in the EON films, and to others, the twenty-sixth film counting all spin-offs of the series. But in reality, Skyfall is the third film in a whole new series that began with the masterpiece Casino Royale and continued with Quantum of Solace. Together, all three of these films seems more like an opening trilogy, to present Bond in a darker light, to continue the Craig series. Check this one out. Expand
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.