User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1431 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 25, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It takes 3/4 of the show to establish the main villian. That's fine. He's a mastermind, and it seems like he has some big plans. They have established the evil genius now let's move towards the soon to be world eding plan. Nope. We get a few seconds of his plan and the rest of the movie is him simply trying to kill bond and M. That's it. He follows them around trying to kill them. And to top it off, there is no genius revealed. That's it: Guy tries to kill a couple people. In the end (I checked spoilers don't forget), the bad guy dies by Bond simply throwing a knife into his back. Think about this, I don't care what the knife represents, it is simply thrown into the back of the bad guy and threat removed. There will never be another bond movie as bad as this. Expand
  2. Mar 3, 2013
    3
    This movie deserves 2 points for the opening chase and another point for the few beautiful shots of Istanbul and Shanghai. The rest is entirely forgettable, generic action-movie nonsense. From the title alone I half-expected some big, properly nefarious conspiracy, perhaps involving planes or space. But no, the villain is utterly uninteresting and only motivated by petty revenge. BondThis movie deserves 2 points for the opening chase and another point for the few beautiful shots of Istanbul and Shanghai. The rest is entirely forgettable, generic action-movie nonsense. From the title alone I half-expected some big, properly nefarious conspiracy, perhaps involving planes or space. But no, the villain is utterly uninteresting and only motivated by petty revenge. Bond himself inspires no empathy whatsoever, and displays zero emotion, charm or wit. The pacing is terrible, with some pointless scenes dragging on to the point where I started checking the clock. The plot is full of holes big enough to drive a train through. And of course there are no gadgets to speak of. Because the new Bond is all 'dark' and 'gritty' and 'real' while still managing to be a wooden puppet buffeted by meaningless explosions and fantastical computer hackery. Expand
  3. 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
  4. Nov 11, 2012
    3
    I didn't like this movie. It is little more than a straight action film. Take out the name James Bond and you'll find it hard to see the resemblance to the James Bond series. They took away all the clever gadgets, don't give Bond much time to be cool or charming, he doesn't really play out as much of a hero and the villain has no motivation or plan other than revenge. This seems to be theI didn't like this movie. It is little more than a straight action film. Take out the name James Bond and you'll find it hard to see the resemblance to the James Bond series. They took away all the clever gadgets, don't give Bond much time to be cool or charming, he doesn't really play out as much of a hero and the villain has no motivation or plan other than revenge. This seems to be the direction of the Daniel Craig era of Bond movies and I for one have had enough. Expand
  5. 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
  6. Nov 12, 2012
    3
    Story makes no sense. Enough plot holes and ridiculous moments where you are questioning what where they thinking to fill out any Roger Moore Bond movie. Series that started with amazing Casino Royale keeps going down the hill thanks to over the top action sequences and no regard for coherent plot. Fails miserably in comparison to MI4.
  7. Apr 28, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Pretty distasteful misogyny (more than simple sleeping with women- he pretends that he cares for an abused sex slave and promises to rescue her, then takes advantage of her vulnerability to have sex with her, then when he's got what he wants from her he lets her die without showing any kind of remorse or compassion).

    Beyond this, the plot is boring and totally nonsensical. It is so full of plot holes, loose ends, and inconsistencies that mean you just don't care what happens and spend most of the time just thinking "Why is this happening? What's the point of this? How did he manage that? Why is he there?" etc.

    Non of the main characters are likeable, in fact, I kind of feel that the 'bad guy', Silva, was actually the good guy really. You can understand and sympathise with his motives, where as Bond and M are just a-holes.

    The action sequences aren't even very good. There's no tension to them, and because you don't care about any of the characters or what happens in the 'story' they just become meaningless set pieces.

    To top it off, the script is quite bland, with cliches and occasional pseudo-deep phrases thrown in to annoy you. There is next to no witty dialogue or truly interesting conversations.

    However, if you like to watch movies because you like moving images and the occasional explosion, you'll probably love it.
    Expand
  8. Nov 10, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Bad movie. Hollywood must have some very efficient PR agencies which obviously now spam IMDB & metacritic way ahead of a movies release. Shortly before the movie came out in the US it already had 10000+ reviews on IMDB.

    Story: 2 out of 10 - (Spoilers): Bond dies - Bond does not die - Bond is back - lot of brainless action - plot does not make sense at all. The "evil" guy is a former MI6 agent, who was betrayed and exchanged against six agents by M to the Chinese. Now he wants M dead and how does he show her what she did was wrong? He acquires a list of NATO agents working undercover and unfolds their identity (5 at a time, to make it even more mischievous) on a YouTube channel (nice product placement btw.). As if that does not make enough sense he now blows up M's office 15 years after he freed himself out of the Chinese prison and makes sure M is not in it (adds to the suspense). To spice up life besides blowing up things and hacking M's computer he manipulates the stock market and hacks into satellites. Makes sense? Yes? No! But now his evil plans for world dom... ehhm... no actually just killing M (which seems to pretty easy for this superbrainiac) will finally come true, so he gets himself arrested by the MI6 and is locked up in a airtight cell in MI6 new secret HQ somewhere below London. But of course he has already calculated all the steps MI6 will take and now from within his supersecure cell he executes his super evil plan to ESCAPE from the cell! He escapes (this is not being shown, as escaping from a airtight cell is just too easy for this guy and too hard for the ingenious director to execute) and runs through the tunnel with James Bond nearly shooting him (he has precalculated the flight of the bullets too and also exactly the location where Bond is standing as NOW he blows up a hole in the underground of London where surprise surprise a metro is just flying through and nearly missing Bond (he calculated this also, so he could have some more fun with his favourite actor / counterpart). After escaping the underground he walks straight into the parliament (precalculated too) where a trial against the somewhat evil M is being conducted. Now he thinks it is time to kill M for real, but now his calculations went wrong and Bond saves M from being shot by Mr. Evil himself. Because obviously Bond and M now cannot trust anybody besides each other anymore they drive to Scotland and to Bonds former parents house. This of course is still being inhabited by the former servant, who despites being 60+ years old still seems to be quite keen facing Mr. Evil and his minions just armed with some shotguns and some self constructed MacGywer style bombs. Of course Mr. Evil comes in the second wave after blood thirsty Bond now has killed over 15 of his minions in the first assault wave and after a long battle chases M (the new number 1 of the Bond movie) to a chapel nearby. Now finally the 100 minute benchmark is reached - Mr. Evil gets killed - M dies - Bond almost crys and dear old servant looks shocked. Movie over - done. A masterpiece? Nope. The ingredients are mainly senseless shooting - "cool" looking explosions - dark meaningless places and a story lacks any sense at all. Not to say Bond movies ever where super logical or anything, but this movie is just a complete mess. It lacks humor, a coherent story, the evil guy sucks, the Bond girls appear like 5 seconds and then they disappear if lucky or just get plain shot, Bond shows his "dark" side - taking painkillers excessively and drinking, Q hands Bond two **** things and tries to be funny about it, the locations have no charm or character, not a single character gets explained. Main thing nowadays though seems to be kill count needs to be high, actors need not to act but rather look "cool" when killing people and story needs to be not existent to not overbear the viewer.

    Optics 4 out of 10 - Intro is cool, rest way too dark and superficial.

    Actors 3 out of 10 - no actor strikes out, especially the evil guy sucks, but that is all based on the story.
    Expand
  9. Nov 10, 2012
    3
    You have to put feelings in a movie starring Daniel Craig (like in Casino Royale) and Skyfall doesn't do that, just like Quantum Of Solace. Thus, Quantum Of Solace is bad and thus, Skyfall is bad. Skyfall is even worse, actually it's the worst Bond movie I've ever seen (but okay, I've only seen 7). Except Ben Whishaw, none of the actors is interesting and I was really annoyed by JudiYou have to put feelings in a movie starring Daniel Craig (like in Casino Royale) and Skyfall doesn't do that, just like Quantum Of Solace. Thus, Quantum Of Solace is bad and thus, Skyfall is bad. Skyfall is even worse, actually it's the worst Bond movie I've ever seen (but okay, I've only seen 7). Except Ben Whishaw, none of the actors is interesting and I was really annoyed by Judi Dench, because I've got to see her so often in this movie. The first scene with villain Javier Bardem is really cool and leaded me to expect the ending to better than the beginning, but in fact Bardem is just another stupid antagonist. When it comes to the final showdown, he is just dumb. The ending was really bad and I don't know how Sam Mendes could film such **** The action is not rememberable, the actors aren't good and the whole movie is at least half an hour too long. I have no clue why critics raved over this movie so much, it didn't entertain me at all. I was very disappointed with Skyfall and I'd suggest you not to spend money on the cinema ticket for this. Expand
  10. Nov 10, 2012
    3
    There was nothing James Bond about this movie. Big let down on music, plot, and good use of product displacement. James Bond movies were always 50 years ahead of its time, there was no such technology or cars or anything that was used. The plot of ex agent becoming the villan is same as golden eye plot. The bond girl was short lived. The relationship of skyfall in bonds life was not shownThere was nothing James Bond about this movie. Big let down on music, plot, and good use of product displacement. James Bond movies were always 50 years ahead of its time, there was no such technology or cars or anything that was used. The plot of ex agent becoming the villan is same as golden eye plot. The bond girl was short lived. The relationship of skyfall in bonds life was not shown in the right way. They basicly could have shot the end scene somewhere else and it would not have mattered at all. They have a new Q. Come on. I couldn't trust him till the end... Lol.. And what the heck where they achieving by successfully locating James on the radar. I get it that he had to be tracked but don't keep telling us viewers that. It gets annoying. There was no super car. Just a jag scene and an old Astin Martin, that did nothing basically. Big let down on cars. Overall I was not impressed a bit. Expand
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Nov 18, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I went into this movie expecting "the best bond movie yet" and what I got was far from that. The story line is horrid and for most of the story to even take place we have to accept that even though the characters are supposed to be the best and brightest England has to offer, they make some of the worst choices possible. 1.) The British government compiles a list of every nations undercover agents real names, puts said list on a laptop that some how finds it's way to Istanbul. - Really? MI6 is smart enough acquire that information but dumb enough to put it on a laptop and let it get out in the open? 2.) The villain is introduced as a genius computer hacker with some brilliant strategic skills. This might be true in the very beginning but quickly disappears. Rather than just shoot Bond and be rid of him, he blows a hole in the ceiling so that a subway train will coming crashing in and maybe kill Bond. - I thought we were past the days of "let's try to kill him with some crazy method where we don't actually see him die". Because that method works so well.... 3.) Q claims to also be a genius with computers but then he goes and connects the villain's laptop to their network which just so happens to also be running the security system. - Worst part of the movie for me was this moment because the second they connect his laptop you already know it'll have some "virus" that takes everything down in a matter of seconds thus freeing the villain.

    Save yourself the time and money, go see something else.
    Expand
  14. 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
  15. Dec 4, 2012
    3
    OK, he's shot in the chest, he falls a distance that is deadly, he goes over what could be Niagara Falls, and then 20 minutes later he's lying next to a woman in bed. No explanation given; some guys just don't die. I understand that with James Bond films belief must be suspended and situations are presented that don't make sense in the real world (like our defenseless hero is surrounded byOK, he's shot in the chest, he falls a distance that is deadly, he goes over what could be Niagara Falls, and then 20 minutes later he's lying next to a woman in bed. No explanation given; some guys just don't die. I understand that with James Bond films belief must be suspended and situations are presented that don't make sense in the real world (like our defenseless hero is surrounded by armed opponents who follow the golden rule that they cannoct respond towards our hero until it is "their turn"), so I am somewhat predisposed not to like this type of film. But what is really wrong with this film is that the script is dumbed down to a fifth grade level and I may be too kind in this assessment. Really? People at this level of achievement talk with such a low grade -intelligence quotient? Expand
  16. Dec 22, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Skyfail is all that can be said for the BOND experience in this film. The starting introduction was one of the best James Bond's I had seen. However this buzz quickly faded. The film began like the Matador (Pierce Brosnan) while finishing with a Home Alone ending. Every aspect of the classic James Bond was forgotten this was how they celebrated 50 years of James Bond. This films plot was awful and dire resulting in an invasion at home and HQ. From a double agent hacker, because hacking makes the world go around, and hacking explains the most unimaginable and can fill all the gap holes in very story from here China. The bond girl is Money Penny the assassin, instead of her classic secretarial evaluator role, or a Chinese prostitute who the heartless bond couldn't careless for and dies in 5 minutes, or the granny M. There was absolutely no Bond girl of any substance. There was no gadgets, and the classic Bond car gets blown up. The macho bond, who is intelligent, witty, savvy, and sophisticated gets all the hot girls, plays with all the cool toys, kills all the villains by using the cool moves, while doing his own stunts and looking awesome. No this image wasn't there at all. He is reduced to a drunken mess like in the Matador, the most erotic scene was with a queerish villain, Bond struggles with home invasion and has mommy issues. Q is also some spotty teenager this is why he didn't have any toys. The dynamic 's of the opening Bond song have changed and are replaced by Chinese dragons or some other visual scenery that is totally irrelevant instead of being about the entire film or its punchline. While missing mostly the silhouette of Bond Girls, Bond and Villains even. What a disappointment and a skyfail to JAMES BOND after 50 years. They have changed in through this film into something else the opposite. Expand
  17. Feb 13, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I like Casino Royale, I like the Bond formula, I hated Quantum of Solace but I thought... surely it can't be worse. I was right, but only just. I'm going to slate this film and for one main reason; what is the point in making a Bond movie if the character isn't even recognisably Bond?
    Instead of a suave sophisticated agent you get a washed out has-been (who can still miraculously perform anything he needs to); instead of him bedding beautiful women he jokes when they die; instead of fighting a supervillain who wants to take over the world he's fighting a complete idiot (see plot-holes); instead of gadgets he gets a tracing chip the size of a toaster and a fingerprint PPK whoop-dee-woo. OK, OK.... Its a new Bond, he's got to be more realistic in a post-Bourne world?? So, they have a plot that's so riddled with holes you can (literally) drive a tube train through it; an enemy that appears to be insanely competent but then completely insane; an unsurvivable fall; an unescapable escape; and a ridiculous ending where Bond, an old man and an old women take on and win against a small army.

    Bond has no charm, the film has no warmth, the characters make no sense, the dialogue is wooden, the love scenes cold, the action heavy handed, and the film betrays the Bond legacy. Why 3/10? Because the cinematography....

    ... is lush. I fully expect the cinematography to win an oscar. Watch it for that, but otherwise this is not even a Bond film and the last in the franchise I'll watch.
    Expand
  18. Feb 26, 2013
    3
    The progress made in bringing the franchise into the modern age is spectacularly undone. By the end of this film, you find yourself staring at the start of every early Bond film. While this could have been a superb way to wrap up 'Bond will return' and that is rather a depressing notion.
  19. Jul 22, 2014
    3
    This Bond movie is probably one of worst I've seen to be quite honest. I don't have much of problem with the actors as they get the job done; it's more so with the movie itself. I had no clue what was happening throughout the entire movie, and I wasn't going to watch it a second time to try and understand what the hell happened. This movie's villain is probably one of the lamest I've seenThis Bond movie is probably one of worst I've seen to be quite honest. I don't have much of problem with the actors as they get the job done; it's more so with the movie itself. I had no clue what was happening throughout the entire movie, and I wasn't going to watch it a second time to try and understand what the hell happened. This movie's villain is probably one of the lamest I've seen in a bond film, shameful and weak is what it is. Comparing this movie to it's predecessor, Casino Royale, is like comparing a brass brick to a golden brick. This movie without a doubt is bad, from it's sheer boring feel, to it's nonsensical story. Watch any other Bond film. Expand
  20. Dec 3, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. CGI is good, as is typical in modern movies. However, it is also typical for _Bond_ movies to have an epic evil guy. Nuke a major city, disrupt the global economy that is the kind of plan we all come to expect from the Bond's antagonist. But in this movie the bad guy is just a disgruntled former employee on steroids.

    What's worse, he did have all the necessary ingredients: a personal island with some satellite communication equipment, an army of well-armed devotees... And what does he do? He just tries to get personal revenge against his former boss by running around with a pistol. That's so... non-epic!
    Expand
  21. Dec 17, 2013
    3
    WORST BOND I HAVE EVER SEEN. Craig is a good actor (see Layer Cake), Casino Royale was good (almost as good as Goldeneye...not the game, though...CLASSIC!), and Quantum was a let-down, comparatively, but compared to Skyfall, as masterpiece. The absurdity of this movie's plot-line is only rivaled by the absurdity of the money invested in it and the degree of claimed positiveWORST BOND I HAVE EVER SEEN. Craig is a good actor (see Layer Cake), Casino Royale was good (almost as good as Goldeneye...not the game, though...CLASSIC!), and Quantum was a let-down, comparatively, but compared to Skyfall, as masterpiece. The absurdity of this movie's plot-line is only rivaled by the absurdity of the money invested in it and the degree of claimed positive reception...It's so bad, I can't even sort out what, specifically to criticize. All I can say to summarize is that the fact that this film received such positive reviews compared to the other contemporary "JB" (James Bond/Jason Bourne) film, Bourne Legacy's relatively poor critical reception speaks volumes about the state of our society...Skyfall was utter rubbish, whilst as good as the Damon Bourne films were, Legacy was, to an objective reviewer, superior to even those, and yet received mixed to poor reviews...what a racket. Here's hoping Barbara Broccoli has the wisdom to recruit Paul Greengrass for Bond XXIV. Wake up S(m)erfs. Expand
  22. Feb 19, 2015
    3
    I was hoping this movie, because it's a James Bond film, would be very interesting, clever, and cool. On the other hand, Me and my friend found this movie terribly boring. In fact, so boring that I was desperately trying not to fall asleep in the theatre and crying in my mind for some action scenes to fill in that empty spot of pleasure. However, all the action lasted for only around 1-2I was hoping this movie, because it's a James Bond film, would be very interesting, clever, and cool. On the other hand, Me and my friend found this movie terribly boring. In fact, so boring that I was desperately trying not to fall asleep in the theatre and crying in my mind for some action scenes to fill in that empty spot of pleasure. However, all the action lasted for only around 1-2 minutes. It's different when you have company and you watch an tenious film when you were expecting some decent action scenes with a great storyline.

    Also, this character for James Bond just doesn't cut it for me! He's like this strange emo guy that doesn't fit the classy James Bond role, who in my opinion is a gentleman, clever, mysterious, a bit of a prevent, but still pretty dope if you know what I mean. Daniel doesn't fit any of these traits! Sorry, Skyfall is nothing to me! Other people may like it but for me no!

    The only parts of the movie I'd enjoyed was the introduction with Adele singing Skyfall and the "gay" scene. 3.5/10
    Expand
  23. Sep 27, 2013
    2
    Skyfall has no heart. The actors seem like robots with flat performances. Nobody smiles much and its not funny or entertaining.
    Bad color work. Every scene looks like a photoshop filter. Every scene is bathed in an oompa loompa orange glow.
    The characters, plot, and dialogue are quite simply boring due lack of complexity and mystery. The music isn't quite exciting enough, but it matches
    Skyfall has no heart. The actors seem like robots with flat performances. Nobody smiles much and its not funny or entertaining.
    Bad color work. Every scene looks like a photoshop filter. Every scene is bathed in an oompa loompa orange glow.
    The characters, plot, and dialogue are quite simply boring due lack of complexity and mystery.
    The music isn't quite exciting enough, but it matches the slow pacing.
    Politically tiresome. Having M and Bond on poor terms, then a bad relationship with the agency AND his other field agent was quite lame.
    The movie is Lord of the Rings long (almost 3 hours) without any of the epic scale and depth. Its so slow its hard to follow.
    You don't see the villain until halfway through the movie. This never works in any movie, just like Superman Returns. There should be some back and forth between the villain and good guy in the beginning.

    On the plus side there is a few cool vehicle scenes, but nothing I'd spend money only to see.

    They should have called it Downfall. While Casino Royale was only OK, the series has been worse and worse. The truth is that Daniel Craig and the production team that did this aren't suave and inventive enough to make a good bond movie. The last people to come up with a good Bond story was EA's Everything or Nothing video game. Don't watch Skyfall.
    Expand
  24. Nov 25, 2012
    2
    I expected a lot more from the movie. The previous movies where great but this has only a very few good moments. It doesn't follow the normal Bond franchise action packed fim. Also the tragic elements have a weird mixture. I would advise James Bond fans to just skip 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. Nov 10, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was such a disappointment after Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. I was so excited to see Javier Bardem as the villain, but all we have is a psychologically damaged former spy who has a poorly dyed hair and eyebrow job and a poor script. Where were Bond's new toys? A new gun and a transmitter hardly qualify. Even the romance was missing. The action was sub par to previous Bond movies. I had read some critics reviews before seeing the show and I was anticipating something great. Far from it. I wonder what movie those folks had seen because this sure was a disappointment. This makes me wonder about the caliber of future Bond movies. If this is the direction the future movies are taking, I guess I will be watching the old shows rather than the new ones from here on in. Expand
  27. Nov 10, 2012
    2
    Probably the most boring Bond movie I've seen. Unfortunate, as I came into it with medium-rare expectations. I'd wait for Redbox, at best. See something else on the big screen.
  28. 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
  29. Nov 19, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Where to even begin with how awful this movie is??? First, I LOVE action films. I LOVE Bond films. I LOVE Sam Mendes. Does that mean they should all be in one movie together? Um.... no. As a preface, I was really excited by all the hype for this film and waited in line for two hours to redeem my $22 IMAX ticket at the only "real" IMAX theater in NYC to get the very best seat in the house. And what did I get for this dedication? A meandering story line that was derivative, ridiculous, and at least thirty minutes too long (how does this "old guy Bond" that can't even pass a simple fitness test survive being shot with a high-grade weapon and falling several stories into a huge waterfall??); scenes and subplots that barely even made sense (why does Bond meet the Bond girl and determine she is a former child sex trade worker, then suddenly appear like a CREEP in her shower, promise to save her, and then let her die in the next scene commenting callously that her death was a waste of good scotch-- POINTLESS if not creepy); idiotic plot devices (why do people need a flashlight to find a huge building in a field lit up by massive explosions and flames? Ummmm, let's see... to make them easy for the villain to find...??); lame, lame LAAAAAMMMMMEE fight sequences (that Shanghai club scene was so ho-hum after all the build up. Not to mention it contained the ONLY bit of pay off on the supposedly "cool" gun. Why does a Chinese body guard not carry his own gun and how does he not know there is a huge dragon in this pit in the place where he works, nor manage to see it coming?).
    The gadgets were boring- an iPod mini is cooler than that radio- and the scenes were overall, way too drawn out.
    How, how HOW have we forgotten the primary rule of cinema-- SHOW don't tell???? I don't want to hear a long monologue about a Chinese prison sentence, I want to SEE it. I don't want to watch Bond follow two steps behind, discovering Patrice's trail of dead bodies- I want to see the kills! I want to SEE Javier Bardem's awesome escape from this airtight cell, instead of leaving Q to "suddenly realize" that he must have been planning it all along and somehow magically foresaw all these incredible details blah blah blah. Show me how this crazy cool fingerprint gun works! Give me a tour of your awesome Aston Martin that's so much cooler now than it was in Goldfinger. At least let me see the CGI scorpion TRY to sting Bond.... SOMETHING. And why oh why is the cleaning guy at the little beach bungalow bar watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN conveniently at sunrise...? Are you serious?? That's REALLY the best you can do with a team of three accomplished Hollywood writers? I want to SEE how Bond survived his crazy fall, if he's so old and has a bullet wound. The pacing of this film was slow, WAY to slow for an action film. Bond lost, in my opinion, all his sex appeal- the shower scene was so far from steamy and the shaving scene was loooonnnnngg and went nowhere. There was no build at all to the momentum of this film. Points where the suspense should have been at a high (like in M's hearing) plodded along with the efficiency of a three-toed sloth. Points where Bond could have been a hero (like for example, SAVING the Bond girl to make her three scenes at least kind of pay off) were missing entirely. With all the technology today, you would think they could have come up with some cooler gadgets and taken the time to show us how they work, because the HOW is really the awesome part of action movies anyway.
    And why oh WHY did we witness at least ten minutes of film establishing how old and beat up James Bond is these days, and how he can't even pass a fitness test, only for NONE of this information to ever pay off anywhere else in the story??? I'm all for exploring the aging super hero thing, like Batman as a shut in facing foreclosure, but this just seemed like an unresolved, half-explored idea.

    Javier Bardem stole the show as always, and actually held my attention with his two very lengthy monologues. In the hands of another actor, this role could have been ridiculous but he brought out the creepy sadism and kept it bubbling just under the surface for the whole film, justifying as best he could WHY (why oh why, Writers??) a man with such "limitless power" might wait fifteen years to kill the woman he hated most, biding his time with stock market manipulation, and why it seems like such a process to kill her when he can apparently blow up MI6 with undetected ease. Judi Dench and Albert Finney were both excellent as always, and truly made up the only emotional core of this film, being the only actors who were able to achieve a measure of compassion or depth.
    Daniel Craig was pouty and plasticky as usual and his body language continues to seem put on and unconvinced. Eve Moneypenny had all the vim and vigor of a corporate lawyer and I really wasn't sold on that casting choice. All around- LAME BOND.
    Expand
  30. Nov 25, 2012
    2
    James Bond films are iconic not just for adventure also for the beautiful bevy of Bond girls that act as sirens to our beloved 007. Skyfall has taken the newest profession of its featured Bond girl in this film to an all time low. The beautiful heroin is actually a victim of human bondage. This practice is repugnant enough, but to show case this exploitation of women as sexy; isJames Bond films are iconic not just for adventure also for the beautiful bevy of Bond girls that act as sirens to our beloved 007. Skyfall has taken the newest profession of its featured Bond girl in this film to an all time low. The beautiful heroin is actually a victim of human bondage. This practice is repugnant enough, but to show case this exploitation of women as sexy; is blatantly disrespectful to all women, especially to those who suffer under these very real and very deplorable living conditions.
    The audience quickly discovers that this damsel in distress; is actually and quite literally the branded property, of the antagonist in Skyfall. The heroic Bond promises the very terrified woman that he will avenge her captors and in the following scene successfully dukes it out with several of the antagonist henchman. In the next scene 007 slips comfortably into the shower with the woman in bondage and proceeds to sleep with her. No woman alive can resist the charming allure of James Bond! This theme has been resonated in every Bond film since it
    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.