Skyfall

[baumer]

Discuss

[cookie]

9/10

Pros:

- It's said that a bond actor finds his seat in his third outing, and this perfectly applies to Craig. It's never really explained how he survived being shot twice and falling hundreds of feet into a river, but it doesn't matter in the long run. This bond feels more vulnerable than other interpretations of the character but still manages to be determined, smart and funny. He keeps what's essential to the James Bond character while still making him look fresh and new.

- Nothing that sucked about Quantum of Solace is in this film. No terrible editing or bullshit shaky-cam is present here.

- Adele's song.

- Javier Bardem. Like Craig does to Bond, Bardem takes what's essentially an old-school Bond villain and gives him an edge (in this case a very personal edge) that makes him a ton of fun to watch. His hair and accent is silly, but Bardem makes the most of it.

- Even the locations in the film feels like they could have been in a Sean Connery/Roger Moore Bond film if there weren't an modern edge to them. Again, taking the classic Bond feel and characters and making them seem fresh and new.

- M might actually be more important to the story than even Bond himself is, and that's pretty cool to see.

- The meaning of Skyfall. Wow.

- References to the old films everywhere, that's always cool. Also, I love Bond's face when the Aston Martin DB5 (the first cinematic Bond car) get's massacred by helicopter fire and explodes. The Bond theme blasts at full force and he's like "oh, it's on bitch!".

Cons:

- The "other" Bond girl. Now, Naomi Harris was pretty decent as Moneypenny, but the same can't be said for that chick who's name I can't remember. Not so much her acting as much as that the character has very little purpose in the film despite the movie taking some time to build up her character. She meets Bond, takes him to Bardem's hideout and get's used for target practice, that's it. I didn't think she was going to survive the whole movie anyway but if you're going to develop her at first couldn't you make her last a little bit longer?

- Ralph Fiennes wasn't anything bad in his role, but outside the ending didn't really do much but bicker at everyone else despite being set up as the future M. He can defend for himself, which is good (the previous iterations of the character including Judi Dench were worthless in combat) but not much character was set up for him, which is a shame.

- That old fart that came out of nowhere in the third act. Is he another old Bond reference? I don't get it.

[CoolioD1]

Loved it, I think it's the first of DC's Bond movies that feels like traditional Bond and yet it's also completely different to any other Bond movie. Javier Bardem was the most entertaining Bond villain ever, I also really liked the rest of the cast, probably with the exception of Naomie Harris whose flirting with Bond was just a bit too awkward, now that she's the new Moneypenny I suppose we're going to have to put up with that in future Bonds as well, ugh.Also this has BEAUTIFUL photography from Deakins. :worthy:And he didn't get much to do in this but I can't wait to see Ralph Fiennes as the new M. Great casting.

[ddddeeee]

Good, but the reviews are really flattering.It was so camp though, which I wasn't expecting. It draws a good line between old and new so I guess I can understand the reviews. None of the action was very exciting until M really got involved. Cast is great, Bardem is hysterical. Newman's score was disappointing. Gorgeous, especially during the token final confrontation. Casino Royale is still the top Craig Bond film.

[bballman24]

Bond crying with M in his arms... Man tears.I completely agree with the first review.For me, I really enjoyed that bond girls were not involved, because I figured the focus should be on Bond and M.Also, I'm in Hong Kong now, and I can tell you that I've been to Macau a few times already, and there is not a single casino that looks like the one in the film lol.

[jb007]

The movie succeeds in some ways but falls short in delivering satisfying action scenes that I have have come to enjoy in bond movies. Daniel Craig is admirable. The pacing of the movie is slow till the the last third of the movie.

My biggest misgiving is that it does not feel like a Bond movie.

B

[Jack Nevada]

I have such mixed feeling about Skyfall, so I'll just do a pro's and con's type of thing:PROS+ Daniel Craig was at his finest. A great performance+ this film is visually beautiful, especially the Shanghai scenes+ I liked the new Q and the few bits of dry humor here and there+ the very ending was amazing. It made me so happy+ I loved how they brought back the classic Aston Martin+ Silva's first scene with the gay innuendo was hysterical. I loved itCONS- It's not a fun movie, to me. Its too heavy, long and unnecessarily deep for it to be truly enjoyable- Berenice Marlohe was useless, bland and not a good actor at all- the over-reliance of CG. Come on, get some real komodo dragons, for fucks sake- The bit where Bond was stuck underwater could have been more suspenseful- There isn't too much rewatchability.- I personally think they didn't do the backstory of Bond too well6,5/10

Edited November 2, 2012 by Jack Nevada

[Crusader]

Surprised by the lukewarm response I thought it was excellent myself and ... brace yourselves .... BETTER THAN CASINO ROYALE Yep I said it It builds up slow but it really delivers and there are only a few minor things preventing it from being a perfect movie 9/10 Possibly the best Bond film IMO

[CoolioD1]

^I agree.

[Heretic]

Loved this. I'd rate it on par with Casino Royale or maybe just slightly above it because Bardem was just so awesome, the action sequences were incredible, especially the opening, and Craig was at his absolute finest. I also loved the fact that a lot of the places in the film were so familiar to me on an every day basis which made me feel more connected to it.

A

[Crusader]

Yeah I was engaged in this one much more cause despite the OTT stuff ( that is a must for Bond I mean that's why we watch it ) it also felt somewhat grounded and down to earth with London and Scotland segment taking more than a half of the movie to themselves I like the exotic stuff too but it makes me feel distant ... like idk if there some OTT action and its all happening in a jungle where the chase is on to get to the evil terrorist/emperor palace ( you know what I mean right ? ) They had it here with those lizards but for the most part I believed in action that was happening IDK Mendes IMO totally nailed Bond to and fro ... just a few minor things like some bad puns ( I always hated this house ) prevented from being the perfect film alltogether

[Crusader]

2 things I'd like to add 1 - best opening credits IMO 2 - and this is also a warning to US members who are reading these reviews and haven't seen the movie - while Bardem is amazing ( as he usually is ) he is in the movie only in the second half maybe in the final hour or so ( movie's runtime is 140 minutes btw ) which is understandable given the structure of a story and his super villain status ( you can't get to him that easy ) but out of the very limited screentime he had he totally owned every second of it ... I guess he wanted best Bond villain award on his resume - he deserves it

[Thrylos 7]

I didn't like it and i really wanted to . It was too dry and didn't seem like a Bond movie to me. The only good part was the pre-opening credits action scene . Bardem was horrible as the villain (i can't believe what i am typing since i love Bardem) , most scenes made no sense whatsoever and defied logic EVEN for a bond movie (everything just seemed way too easy for Bardem's character) and nothing resembled a Bond movie .Another bad aspect is that this again seemed like a reboot , why ?? Wasn't that the purpose of "Casino Royal " (which i thought was fantastic) ? Why must we wait until the end to just get a few glimpses that remind us of true Bond ? Why must we , again like in CR, wait until the end to hear the Bond theme ? (and yeah the retro scene with the aston martin doesn't count, IMO)You can do both spectacular and sentimental in the same Bond movie (just look AHMSS) and skyfall failed at both ends . I had such high hopes for the franchise after CR and they were crushed with the 2 last movies .Oh well maybe at the next reboot ......

[Jack Nevada]

The opening credits were a mess, didn't like em

[Crusader]

Damn what movie did you guys watch ??? I can't believe this

[BK007]

There should be a dislike button. Some of the problem points made are incredibly stupid.Naturally, it's the best Bond. Whether or not it holds up, is another. Casino Royale was, and then was so slow and muted second time round.Old Bonds I have seen are all pretty bad.

[Jack Nevada]

There should be a dislike button. Some of the problem points made are incredibly stupid.Naturally, it's the best Bond. Whether or not it holds up, is another. Casino Royale was, and then was so slow and muted second time round.Old Bonds I have seen are all pretty bad.

[Hatebox]

I liked it a lot. It was structurally and visually daring without forgetting it was still a big franchise movie. I didn't find it camp (apart from intentionally on Bardem's part) and if anything probably would have appreciated a tad more humour. Mendes has talked about TDK being the biggest influence in this movie and it's often very obvious - especially the intercutting montages and relentless score.I rate it on par with CR and maybe even above after another viewing. Catch it in IMAX if you can, it looks beautiful.Only negatives were the CGI komodo dragons and the absurd Heiniken placements. The part where M's assistant drinks one while they're tracking Bond was outrageous. The setting of the traps near the end also felt a bit Home Alone-esque, which I'm sure wasn't intentional.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Hatebox

[jb007]

There should be a dislike button. Some of the problem points made are incredibly stupid.

Naturally, it's the best Bond. Whether or not it holds up, is another. Casino Royale was, and then was so slow and muted second time round.

Old Bonds I have seen are all pretty bad.

Yeah that is why the series has lasted 50 years and is still going strong. Edited November 6, 2012 by jb007

[acab]

I really liked it. It's in the Top-3 Bond films of all time.It's the deeper, darker, more personal and vulnerable Bond yet. Visually it's brilliant and the characters have depth. I loved the underlying theme of new vs old and the nodes to earlier films. I liked that some characters' ark came full circle and the additions of the cast regulars. Bardem was walking a thin line between funny and menacing but he nailed it. And the last 20 minyutes were extremely atmospheric and i liked the back to the basics approach. It could have been a bit tighter and i think it had some script issues over the first hour but in the end i was extremely satisfied. I would even recomend it to non-Bond fans.