Skyfall (2012)

[Daniel M]

I think it's okay to create a separate 'review thread' for new releases in the review section alongside the build up thread, if not then feel free to move this or what not. Seeing as it is a new and popular release I thought it would be better to start a thread.

Skyfall (2012, Sam Mendes)

SkyfallI went in to this film with high expectations for a number of reasons, not only the positive reviews it has already began to receive but the recipe for success that this film has with Sam Mendes as director and Javier Bardem as the lead villain.

I wont talk much about the plot to prevent any spoilers, I went in to the film knowing nothing more than what I had seen from the trailer and was pleasantly surprised with what is a simple yet effective storyline that allows for strong performances from film's main actors.

Sam Mendes' 2002 film Road to Perdition picked up an Academy Award for its cinematography and as one would expect for a modern Bond film the cinematography and visuals all round are superb. The use of lighting is superb throughout, in the first half we see the characters entirely surrounding by glass, with the Hong Kong neon lights shining through to great effect and then there is the fantastic final scenes where we see the films technical capabilities used to their full effect.

Javier Bardem is brilliant as the villain, his slightly similar to his Oscar winning performance "from No Country for Old Men" although this type his craziness comes half through his fearful personality and half through his comedic touch. His role as a villain is perfect for Bond, he brings to the screen a good balance, whilst he is a serious, sadistic and feared character, he allows us to enjoy the more light hearted side of Bond with some excellent moments. There is one scene in which he reminds me of Hannibal from "The Silence of the Lambs", once you have watched it you will get what I am talking about.

This serious but fun side of Bond is not only visible in the villain, but the film as a whole which plays at a great pace and is well set out, it is relatively straightforward but that helps in a way. The film's final third is full of everything we love about Bond, the situation is very much serious yet we get moments of comedy between the great chemistry of the actors, we get the old Aston Martin car and the inevitable face off.

I wont say much more about the film, is it the best Bond film yet? It is hard to say right now and even harder to compare the new style of Bond to the old, but such claims are not ridiculous. Mendes brings us everything we love about Bond, enjoyable characters and relationships, humour, a memorable villain, a mixture of old and new Bond themes and applies his usual quality in terms of direction and cinematography.

My Rating

4.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

It is perfectly fine to create a review thread for a single film. I've been hearing nothing but great things, saying this is the sequel that should have come after Casino Royale. Look forward to it.

[Brodinski]

I'll be watching this tonight. I get a semi just thinking about it.

[Taylor1980]

I agree on the whole with your review dude, especially to do with the cinematography, its up there with Ken Adams best work as one of the best looking Bonds. Some of the location choices and stuff were inspired too, made everything feel really unique (i'm thinking of the London Underground and Shanghai scenes)

I thought it was absolutely fantastic, right up there with Casino Royale in terms of overall quality. I'm gonna try and get back to see it again sometime this week.

[Brodinski]

Hmm, I watched it last night.

The acting was very solid, except for Bérénice Marlohe. Craig confirms he's cut out for the part; Judi Dench is awesome; Fiennes was good and the other supporting cast was all around solid.

I like what they've done to Q, and the 'exploding pen' reference made me laugh. The references to other films were a nice touch as well. The cinematography is terrific imo and there were some very nice sequences, definitely a notch above what you're used to seeing in a Bond film. The soundtrack was good too. And the dialogue was pretty good too.

The plot was well-constructed up to the final 30 or 40 minutes of the film. It felt like a more sophisticated version of an episode of The A-Team, and I don't mean that in a good way. The logical progression of the plot and the fact that it was well-constructed and engaging was kind of diminished by the third and final part of the film, and as a result, I left the theater with mixed feelings.

This was certainly one of the better Bond films, but not the greatest Bond film ever made, not by any stretch of imagination. It's borderline top 10 imo. I'd have it at # 8 or # 9 I think.

This amounts to a 3.5.

[Daniel M]

Hmm, I watched it last night.

The acting was very solid, except for Bérénice Marlohe. Craig confirms he's cut out for the part; Judi Dench is awesome; Fiennes was good and the other supporting cast was all around solid.

I like what they've done to Q, and the 'exploding pen' reference made me laugh. The references to other films were a nice touch as well. The cinematography is terrific imo and there were some very nice sequences, definitely a notch above what you're used to seeing in a Bond film. The soundtrack was good too. And the dialogue was pretty good too.

The plot was well-constructed up to the final 30 or 40 minutes of the film. It felt like a more sophisticated version of an episode of The A-Team, and I don't mean that in a good way. The logical progression of the plot and the fact that it was well-constructed and engaging was kind of diminished by the third and final part of the film, and as a result, I left the theater with mixed feelings.

This was certainly one of the better Bond films, but not the greatest Bond film ever made, not by any stretch of imagination. It's borderline top 10 imo. I'd have it at # 8 or # 9 I think.

This amounts to a 3.5.

Any chance you could expand on way you were so disappointed by the final 30/40 minutes, use spoiler tags if needed. The A-Team reference, were you applying that to the final act?

[Brodinski]

Any chance you could expand on way you were so disappointed by the final 30/40 minutes, use spoiler tags if needed. The A-Team reference, were you applying that to the final act?

Yes, seeing as the final act took half an hour.


The entire preparation Bond, M and Kincade made felt like the same thing that happened in every A-Team episode. They do this preparation on a territory that is still theirs, but that the baddy wants to claim. Only difference in Bond is that the baddy wants to kill M. And the way everything eventually turned out was almost exactly how the final part of an A-team episode works out: booby traps + gunfire eliminate regular thugs, man-to-man combat eliminates more important thugs and finally the baddy gets eliminated last. I expected something more than that, and as a result, I was dissapointed by it. It felt like a cheap way to round up the film.

[GrahamBlake1984]

Daniel Craig returns as James Bond in this movie that is also celebrating 50 years since the Bond franchise began. After a lengthy delay, and the 50 year celebrations, there was plenty of hyp behind this, but did it live up to the expectations I had?


The movie starts off with a solid start. We begin with Bond hunting down an assassin who has just taken out a bunch of agents and taken a hard drive that holds valuable infdormation. After an excellent chase scene Bond ends up being shot and falling off train that is travelling over a bridge and we last see Bonds body going down a waterfall. He is missing presumed dead, but come on, its Bond, it wouldn't be much of a film if he was.


Bond has been living under the radar for six months, since his apparent death. An attack on MI6 forces Bond to come back from obscurity to the aid of the British secret service. However, Bond looks more weather-beaten, older and damaged since coming back, and no longer the agent he was. M however signs him fit for duty and re-asigns him to locate the man he was originally chasing at the start of the movie. The hard drive that was stolen contained information for every undercover operative in the world, and could expose every undercover spy in the secret service.


This movie does include some exotic locations and excellent fight scenes, but this more Bond back to his roots, I felt like this movie took more from the novels than the movies. It tells a story, there is only action when the story requires it, the plot was extremely well done with some nods to the Bond of old, including seeing the old Astin Martin that Connery often drove, complete with ejector seat and machine guns, and a little sprinklingly of the old Bond theme for great effect.


The main villian of the plot, and ex-agent himself, Raoul Silva is an excellent villian for Bond, he is eccentric, odd and most certainly insane. He comes across as a modern version of classic a classic Bond villian, with shades of Red Grant, Goldfinger and Scaramanga mixed together with a modern kick. Javier Bardem is definately a memorable villian and seems to enjoy every second of playing the character. He does an outstanding job and makes ensures this character has a lasting impact on the Bond franchise.


We also get to see alot more of M, who takes a centraly role for the first time in this movie and it is great to see. She stands up well on her own to feet and discover the is alot more to her character than simply being the head of the secret service. Q is also re-introduced as a young man looks barely old enough to be out of school. He doesn't give Bond any 'exploding pens', he is definately showing Q as being more practical than over the top gadgets.


Danile Craig is flawless as Bond, I remember when he was first announced and I certainly gave him a luke-warm reception, but he has actually done a fantastic job since coming into the role. Here he shows a vulnerable side to Bond, he plays the part to perfection. You can see when he comes back he is not quite ready, and he is not quite the same man he was, and Craig does a great job of epxressing that to the audience. I think this is Daniel Craigs best Bond performance to date. With the plot allowing for alot more character development gives the characters and the actors time to shine and that is exactly what Craig does. This is one of the best Bond performances I have seen.


What makes this movie great is all of the nods it gives to the stories of old without becoming cliche, it is stylish, sophisticated and slick, but respects it roots. I think Bond is ready to go in a new direction and it has been done in the right way. Not only does this Bond movie stand up against any other Bond movie, but is also stands up against any other spy movie out today.


Any Bond fan has to see this movie, it is a fantastic effort, and definately a high point in an exceptional movie franchise. This movie helps to endorse Daniel Craig as one of the best Bonds, if not thes best Bond, playing a charcter that closely resembles the character from the novels, and steers well clear of the camped-up Roger Moore outings. This movie is well worth the five stars it receives and definately one of the best movies of the year.

[Pyro Tramp]

I'm undecided on it whether it was just good or great.

The opening sequence didn't quite have the kinetic energy in the action scenes, scenes seemed more like 'scene with abandoned city - interrogation scene' without much seguing in between for a natural flow and led to some jumps in logic too.

Bardem was excellent but needed more screen time to develop relationship (i think I fell asleep so may have missed some of this). His plan, however, seemed unnecessarily convoluted.

The lessened budget definitely did it favours but kind of agree with Brodiniski in the somewhat unsatisfying finale, the church conclusion with M needed a bigger bang to give some more impact.

Deakin's cinematography was fabulous though and utterly distracted from finding too many flaws.

Predicted the final twists but loved it all the same. As well as the cheeky references.

Only thing really lacking was a strong Bond girl.

It's somewhere between 4 and 4_5

[The Rodent]

News just in, literally within the past few minutes:

Skyfall has broken UK Box Office records knocking Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 from the top spot in the UK.

Skyfall UK opening 7 days: £37.2m...

Can't for the life of me find the opening 7 day numbers for Deathly Hallows Part 2... all the sites are only showing Skyfall's numbers and aren't showing Part 2 as a comparison, they're just saying that it's beaten Potter.

[Ruthless Critic]

The previous posts kind of say it all (maybe even too much). A really good movie. Truly worth of your time even if you are not a 007 fan.

If you think about 007 what are the first things that come to your mind? Probably something like fast cars, beautiful women and a solid confidence that the thugs will shoot and miss. This is really a nice variance from the old habits. Bond actually bleeds like the normal mortals and even forgets to shave... And the fast, gadget filled cars are missing altogether.

I have not read the original Ian Fleming's Bond novels so could somebody more civilized comment how this new movie fits into the original Bond concept? Or does it fit at all?

[gandalf26]

Yes, seeing as the final act took half an hour.


The entire preparation Bond, M and Kincade made felt like the same thing that happened in every A-Team episode. They do this preparation on a territory that is still theirs, but that the baddy wants to claim. Only difference in Bond is that the baddy wants to kill M. And the way everything eventually turned out was almost exactly how the final part of an A-team episode works out: booby traps + gunfire eliminate regular thugs, man-to-man combat eliminates more important thugs and finally the baddy gets eliminated last. I expected something more than that, and as a result, I was dissapointed by it. It felt like a cheap way to round up the film.


I agree with this, just got back from watching it.

Very much an improvement on Quontam of absolute **** but perhaps not as good as Casino Royale.

The film up to the ending I thought was very good.

To add to what Brod said the ending seemed so very unbelievable that M would take off with Bond, just the two of them virtually unarmed. Yes I know its a Bond movie and not meant to be very realistic but I much prefer the old "M"s, some old Etonian man having a little professional Banter with Bond at a few points throughtout the film, M never really getting inthe thick of things. Fair enough the plot to kill her but as for her actually picking up a gun and getting involved just felt ridiculous. I didn't like in when M got involved in World Is Not Enough and I didn't like it this time.

I did quite like the tone of the ending, the Aston Martin, no silly gadgets, kind of old school Bond, nice to see a modern day spy movie where every problem isn't solved by some smart phone being plugged into something.

I like the idea of Ralph Fienes coming in as M. Judi Dench was great but it all just felt like political correctness having a woman. Although this did actually happen with Stella Remington as a recent head of MI6 (or MI5) it just feels like the Intelligence service in reality is a man's world, and Fienes is a perfect choice to bring back that old establishment/thespian type figurehead that I believe should be there as M.

Javier Bardem was really good as expected, although the swallowed cianide pill was never really explored, did this make him sick or near death or what? He said his insides were rotted out but he never really looked like he was suffering because of this. The actor opposite Craig should always be a better actor or at least a match so I hope they continue in this vain.

3.5

[meatwadsprite]

I don't think there has been such few action sequences in a Bond movie since the first ones. Not that it mattered, this one was really something special and lived up to the expectations Casino Royale set.

4

[rauldc14]

Saw this last night, and the jury is still out for it. It's a solid film but I do believe in terms of action sequences it could have had a bit more. Yet I also feel it dragged a bit in parts. My favorite part of the film is easily Bardem, who stole the show in my opinion. For now, a 7/10 sounds about right. Probably lies somewhere between 6-10 in the bond rankings.

[Powderfinger]

There is a Aussie motorbike rider who works for the crusty demons whom did the scene on the roof tops in ? I forget where!. Just a fact...:D

[wintertriangles]

Lovely best-off blend of old and new. Charming really.

I was intrigued by killing off the Bond girl so early as well as Bardem's amazing gayness.

PS: Brodinski is way off. The final act, as in Act III, took 5 minutes, not 30.

[AKA23]

Technically, I thought this was very well done, but I must say that I did not come away feeling as excited as the reviews suggested I should. I am probably in the minority here, but I have never liked Daniel Craig as an actor, or as Bond. He is far too stoic, and I don't buy him as a ladies man, because I don't think he's very attractive. I much preferred the other actors who portrayed Bond to Craig. He is most like Timothy Dalton, who I also did not enjoy. I've never liked Craig in the role, and I think that that harmed my ability to enjoy this film as much as others may have. I also didn't really see the point of the way they wrapped up the M character. There were a lot of other ways they could have gone with the character, and I thought the way they chose to conclude the film was not the best way to go.

How does everyone else feel about Daniel Craig as Bond? If you like him, what is it about him that resonates so strongly with you. If you don't, why do you not? I've never understood why people think he's so great in this role.

[Powderfinger]

Technically, I thought this was very well done, but I must say that I did not come away feeling as excited as the reviews suggested I should. I am probably in the minority here, but I have never liked Daniel Craig as an actor, or as Bond. He is far too stoic, and I don't buy him as a ladies man, because I don't think he's very attractive. I much preferred the other actors who portrayed Bond to Craig. He is most like Timothy Dalton, who I also did not enjoy. I've never liked Craig in the role, and I think that that harmed my ability to enjoy this film as much as others may have. I also didn't really see the point of the way they wrapped up the M character. There were a lot of other ways they could have gone with the character, and I thought the way they chose to conclude the film was not the best way to go.

How does everyone else feel about Daniel Craig as Bond? If you like him, what is it about him that resonates so strongly with you. If you don't, why do you not? I've never understood why people think he's so great in this role.

I reckon you're a Moore fella..that cracks me up.

[AKA23]

I liked Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. The last two movies Brosnan did were terrible, but I thought he was good as the character. Daniel Craig shows no emotion, and has little to no personality as Bond. I just don't like his take on the character.

[Powderfinger]

Do you realise that the books about Bond, he was a hard Man,,no emotion and such?

[Daniel M]

I liked Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. The last two movies Brosnan did were terrible, but I thought he was good as the character. Daniel Craig shows no emotion, and has little to no personality as Bond. I just don't like his take on the character.

I think the fact that you do not find him very attractive might play a part in it. It is hard to really explain just why he makes a good Bond, it is just the character and demeanour that he brings to the screen, he looks very suave and serious, calm and collected and with him we can see a person who is a cool and capable killer, at times he is rugged and at times very clean but he always seems believable, at least to me, his comedic side is not the worst either, I felt that in Skyfall his chemistry with Judi Dench as M was very good.

[AKA23]

Do you realise that the books about Bond, he was a hard Man,,no emotion and such?

Yes, I do realize that, but Sean Connery had a similar style, and he was also able to inject the character with more personality, emotion, and cinematic flair than Craig. Craig is too one-note as Bond, in my view. I also liked Roger Moore, but I agree that Moore as Bond was a significant departure from the character as written by Fleming. The movies are their own entity, and as the character, I don't really like Craig at all.

[Powderfinger]

For me it's Connery and Craig.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I dug it, I think it could benefit from being a shorter film. Almost 2 hours and 30 minutes is a tad long and it felt it near the end.

4

[genesis_pig]

For a movie that rips off Charlie's Angels 2 & Hard Target, this was still a good film.

[bellika]

For me it's Connery and Craig.

yeap, your correct, their definitely the best Bond's we've seen. Atleast in my opinion.

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x]

Skyfall was disappointing- certainly not 5 star or even 4 star. I can't believe people fell for the showy cinematography and 'clever' references to Bond's past.

The villain was just offensive. Really, evil camp gay man- in 2012? Reminded me of Moriarty in the BBC version of Sherlock- not a good thing. Craig's quip when Bardem's character comes onto him meant that he had to inform the tabloids that Bond is not gay and will never be gay, to satisfy the morally outraged audience. Of course, the line was nothing more than a witty comeback to show he wasn't fazed by the villain but people immediately assumed that this was some backstory!

And the amount of unwelcome backstory here! Bond is meant to be an enigma. I don't have anything against making the odd reference, such as when Roger Moore refers to Bond's wife in The Spy Who Loved Me, but I don't need childhood trauma. Since when did we ever get an indication that Bond was traumatised by his childhood?

I did love M being central as I love Judi Dench's take on the character (far outdid Craig) but as this is a Bond film, I can't help feeling that Bond should have been doing more.

The whole premise was just wrong. I don't want to watch a Bond film about Bond's midlife crisis. What's the next one going to be- Bond collects his pension? The midlife crisis thing may be a 'clever' way of referencing the average Bond fan and the fact that the series has been going for fifty years, but it doesn't make for an entertaining film. He looks just as old at the end, which isn't helped by the fact that he's sitting next to Judi Dench a lot of the time. I know that the screenwriters, who clearly have no sense of what makes a Bond film, were trying to prove that the old ones are the best (dubious but plays nicely on the nostalgia aspect), but they just made Bond look archaic. Casino Royale was only six years ago and I don't remember him being a dinosaur who's 'out of touch' with the modern world and the youth (represented by Q).

Supporting cast are all great- some are better than others but there's no performance that makes me cringe (apart from Craig's). I've had enough of this 'human' interpretation of Bond (clearly contradicted by the opening). You can make Bond seem human without him having to look scared, weepy and old all the time. It was novel in Casino Royale but god knows how he stayed in the business so long if he looked so scared all the time.

This is very much the Marks and Spencer's version of Bond, with some throwbacks to the more 'working class' days.

[Iroquois]

Well, as far as Bond canon goes the "childhood trauma" comes from the fact that his wealthy parents both died in a climbing accident, making Bond an orphan and apparently a good choice for a secret agent. This was referenced by the villain in 1995's GoldenEye with Pierce Brosnan so it existed before the whole Daniel Craig reboot.

As for the villain, I figured the come-on was less based on actual attraction and more part of a ruse to try to intimidate Bond by any means necessary - as I saw somewhere else, after it turns out this tactic doesn't work Silva changes tack to go after Bond's relationship with M.

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x]

Well, as far as Bond canon goes the "childhood trauma" comes from the fact that his wealthy parents both died in a climbing accident, making Bond an orphan and apparently a good choice for a secret agent. This was referenced by the villain in 1995's GoldenEye with Pierce Brosnan so it existed before the whole Daniel Craig reboot.

I know that Bond was an orphan before this film mentioned it but it wasn't dealt with so cheesily.



As for the villain, I figured the come-on was less based on actual attraction and more part of a ruse to try to intimidate Bond by any means necessary - as I saw somewhere else, after it turns out this tactic doesn't work Silva changes tack to go after Bond's relationship with M.

Sure it's meant to be menacing but even if he doesn't fancy Bond, he clearly fancies men- his character's basically Hollywood shorthand for camp gay man. His 'camp' is meant to be the menacing thing about him except I didn't buy that.

[Agrajag]

If the next Bond film isn't a blockbuster Craig's a goner (and likely won't mind leaving anyway). I just hope Casino Royale isn't the only entry he's remembered for.

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x]

If the next Bond film isn't a blockbuster Craig's a goner (and likely won't mind leaving anyway). I just hope Casino Royale isn't the only entry he's remembered for.

Skyfall was a blockbuster.

[BlueLion]

Skyfall was a blockbuster.

Agreed. And Craig was superb in it, imo. Really liked his performance in the film.

[Agrajag]

Okay, you've got me there. However, Quantum of Solace made $170MM at the box office so it too was a blockbuster and the reviews were decent but I don't know a single Bond fan that liked it. Skyfall had better reviews and did better at the box office but I'm hearing a lot of issues again from Bond fans. We'll see what the reboot gets us. I'm now in the camp that I'm highly dubious of its chances.

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x]

I think Skyfall is the victim of nostalgia. Too much 'ra ra Britain' (well, 2012 was a great year for 'em) and not enough pretty locations.

[Iroquois]

I imagine it went like this...

Casino..."Alright, let's give the new guy a shot...hey, this is actually really good!"
Quantum..."Let's see if he can keep it up a second time...no, he can't."
Skyfall..."Third time's the charm? Well, he actually did pretty well compared to the last one."

[wintertriangles]

I imagine it went like this...

Casino..."Alright, let's give the new guy a shot...hey, this is actually really good!"
Quantum..."Let's see if he can keep it up a second time...no, he can't."
Skyfall..."Third time's the charm? Well, he actually did pretty well compared to the last one."Blame the writers not the actors

[Yoda]

Rumor has it that, in Quantum of Solace because of the strike, the actors were the writers part of the time.

[wintertriangles]

Rumor has it that, in Quantum of Solace because of the strike, the actors were the writers part of the time.And who let that happen?

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

Saw this movie in theaters a while ago, and I really enjoyed it. It was the first Bond movie I had ever seen, believe it or not, and I thought it was really well done. I can't give a great review because I saw it months ago, but it was pretty fun and suspenseful.

B+ or 3.5/5

[CelluloidChild]

I think the fact that you do not find him very attractive might play a part in it. It is hard to really explain just why he makes a good Bond, it is just the character and demeanour that he brings to the screen, he looks very suave and serious, calm and collected and with him we can see a person who is a cool and capable killer, at times he is rugged and at times very clean but he always seems believable, at least to me, his comedic side is not the worst either, I felt that in Skyfall his chemistry with Judi Dench as M was very good.

With the decision to drop Pierce Brosnan, Barbara Broccoli was determined to cast a James Bond more in line with the character as Ian Fleming wrote him. This fit in nicely with deciding to produce Casino Royale, the first of Ian Fleming's James Bond books.

If you've ever read one of the James Bond books, you will know that Daniel Craig - who carries with him more of the ruthless killer and Bond's dark side - comes closer to the literary character than any of the previous actors who played 007. (Aside, perhaps, from the blonde hair. I seem to remember the description of Bond as being the tall, dark and handsome type.)

Imo, Casino Royale is one of the best Bond films, in terms of plot, direction and acting. The twists keep coming relentlessly, right to the climax, and Eva Green as Vesper (perhaps the best Bond girl) is the perfect femme fatale to shoot Bond in his Achilles heel of falling for a beautiful woman.

Daniel Craig is a very good actor and his rough and tumble Bond is a believable one. The main drawback of his portrayal is the lack of humor and charm - in short, he's too stiff for his tuxedo.

While Sean Connery was perhaps a bit more gentlemanly than Ian Fleming had written the character, his infusion of humor and charm into 007 - while still maintaining his no-nonsense license-to-kill masculinity - is what really made the franchise. If there hadn't been a squabble between Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman and Connery, the role probably would have been Connery's at least through to the end of the 1970s.

I found Skyfall to be a good Bond film - not better than Casino Royale, despite very good directing by Sam Mendes, but far better than the awful Quantum of Solace.

However, in watching Skyfall, I found the seriousness with which Craig's Bond takes himself had begun to wear thin. For me, three Craig Bonds are enough. Unfortunately, with the considerable attention devoted in Skyfall to Craig's Bond warming up to Ralph Fiennes - who has now assumed M's mantle - it seems we've been softened up for at least one more Craig venture.

[MovieBuffering]

Yes, seeing as the final act took half an hour.


The entire preparation Bond, M and Kincade made felt like the same thing that happened in every A-Team episode. They do this preparation on a territory that is still theirs, but that the baddy wants to claim. Only difference in Bond is that the baddy wants to kill M. And the way everything eventually turned out was almost exactly how the final part of an A-team episode works out: booby traps + gunfire eliminate regular thugs, man-to-man combat eliminates more important thugs and finally the baddy gets eliminated last. I expected something more than that, and as a result, I was dissapointed by it. It felt like a cheap way to round up the film.


haha I had a different reference run through my mind during the final act



I just keep thinking this feels like Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone when he grows up and becomes an agent. This is how he would booby trap and defend his house hahaha

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x]

Daniel Craig is a very good actor and his rough and tumble Bond is a believable one. The main drawback of his portrayal is the lack of humor and charm - in short, he's too stiff for his tuxedo.

I agree. Dalton may have had not much humour but he was charming and sexy. The attraction of Craig's Bond is not that clear.

[0rainbow01]

I hear that this movie is amazibg, but i don't know, i have to watch it or not? :)

[Nausicaä]

Yes, it's one of the best Bond films in the series.

[Littlejohn123]

I love James Bond but don't like them making him an assassin


John Woodcox

[mark f]

??

[Nausicaä]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mao1i2bCMC1r4vkn5.gif

[Pyro Tramp]

I've watched a few times now, probably put in the latter half of Bond films. Probably 3_5 but not for any precise thing, they just couldn't quite pull the plot off convincingly

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x]

Yes, it's one of the best Bond films in the series.

Really? In what way?

[Nausicaä]

To me it's the most beautifully shot Bond film in the series, with one of the best Bonds(Dalton is still my favourite Bond though) in the lead, concentrated more on M this time around and I enjoyed that, a memorable and excellent villain and there hasn't been a memorable one for some time for me. Glad they finally changed music composers because I was getting sick of David Arnold and so on.

Reading your thoughts on the film, I liked everything you didn't. ;)

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x]

The villain was memorable but it was so homophobic. Like something from the Roger Moore era, which was probably what they were going for.

[Nausicaä]

^ I didn't get this homophobic vibe at all.

[mark f]

Me either.

[ashdoc]

Ashdoc's review---

Aaah !! To be James Bond....

You chase a bad guy up and down an exotic city in the mystical orient ( Istanbul---Constantinople for those waiting to see it liberated from the clutches of the Turks ) first in a car and then on a motorbike making impossible jumps without hitting or killing any living soul....

....and then the chase continues on a train until you are shot at the hands of a delectable black girl....

But lo !! you still survive the shot by falling deep into water , and are saved to end up being caressed tenderly by the loving fingers of a lovely woman in bed.....

This whole action sequence is shot beautifully making it one of the best starts to a Bond movie ever---making you ask for more....

But the more does not come at all....

Instead what you get to see is a plot to expose the identities of all MI6 agents on Youtube metamorphose into a mission to save Bond's boss M from the revenge of an old MI6 agent who is out to settle old scores with her....

And what a villain is the old wronged MI6 agent....all blonde and gay....

Yes , gay enough to lay his hands on James Bond's muscular thighs stroking them with lust in his eyes....

And with this gay villain getting centerstage , the women are sidelined....we don't get to see Bond on top of the delectable black girl at all....and the one he gets to bed is shot dead within a short time....

Yeah ,the exotic locations are all there photographed with skill---from the hideous beauty of Shanghai ( hideous because it was built by kicking out 3 million poor people from their homes ) to the modern wonders of Macau....

.....And so are the high tech bond gadgets like an antique car that fires machine gun fire from hidden guns to a pistol that is coded to James Bond's palm prints....

But ultimately it comes down to a showdown with the villain by the use of old shotguns and makeshift bombs in Bond's ancestral home in Scotland with an old geezer as ally....

So can James Bond prevent MI6 operatives from being exposed ?? And most importantly , can he save M from being killed ??

Go and see the movie for that....

But is it worth the watch ?? I think not....

For there are too many loose ends---like how does James survive the shot and fall from the train....and how does the villain escape so easily after being caught and held amidst tight security by MI6 ??

The one thing that shines is Daniel Craig as James Bond---who is all brawn and muscle and acting performance....

But to me at least , it wasn't enough to carry the film entirely on his ( admittedly broad ) shoulders....

The action is bunched in at the start and at the end with the middle of the movie showing all talk but no action....

Music is decent....

But the movie is barely decent....

Verdict---just about okay...

[Mygezza]

Although I would agree Skyfall was a good film, to date I feel the best Daniel Craig Bond has been hist first Casino Royale, this had the classic Bond sotyline which I dont think the following 2 have, although both great action adventure films.

mygezza dot com

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck_]

For me, Skyfall has an inherent flaw; it both tries to be current and yet still wants to keep the comic/traditional Bond elements. There's all this talk about villains in the shadows and people talking about the modern world- as if the world was in the dark ages in 2008- yet you have a character like Da Silva which is pure old school camp Bond villain. You can't ask people to take Bond as a psychologically deep character when Da Silva is the villain.


Why is Bond being treated like some dinosaur? Bond has always been in touch with the modern world and physically capable; even when Roger Moore was doddering around, we suspend belief. Yet now Bond is meant to be over-the-hill but is unrealistically kept on out of sentiment? In real life, I would think that MI6 would be more ruthless.


Moneypenny and Q are introduced in an annoying way. It's nice to see a change but the changes are presented as if they are big leaps into the modern world. There's no reason why Moneypenny had to be an agent; it's not like Bond hasn't worked with female agents. And Q being a young computer nerd because of how much damage the internet can do was presented in a similar way.


As for the elements of homophobia, it is the villain presented as a grotesque deviant figure who Bond is able to beat through his strong heterosexuality. The audience are meant to be shocked when Bond jokes that he's had previous experiences- some of them went into meltdown, because this would 'destroy' Bond and the joke sullies him. I have no issues with the joke but the portrayal of Da Silva is so stereotypical that it's insulting and it doesn't fit with the Craig era.


SPECTRE looks like it may have similar flaws; it's great that they've got the rights to use SPECTRE but it's too iconic. They could make it look like very traditional Bond or they could rebuild SPECTRE as a modern organisation. I've heard theories that 'James Bond' is a code name; it's just another false attempt to make psychologically real something which is pure fantasy. You can make a fantasy resonate without needing to make it plausible.

[rambond]

ive just had a rewatch of this, and i have to say how great this movie is in the james bond franchise and i have to rank it high enough btw the best ones, daniel craig has made this era totally his role and his character, he's a very good bond character although my top actors for the role are ahead of him, but i really like what he gives in portrayal of bond in his movies, in terms of edgy, reckless, careless secret agent along with charms for the women, he's really good.

[rambond]

i think aswell to add to how good skyfall is as a bond movie, i think adele s score really made it more memorable because the song is simply sublime, i didn t even know before watching thats when she says: "skyfall is where we start", thats its james bond home town, a classic film in the series

[Gideon58]

I think it's okay to create a separate 'review thread' for new releases in the review section alongside the build up thread, if not then feel free to move this or what not. Seeing as it is a new and popular release I thought it would be better to start a thread.

Skyfall (2012, Sam Mendes)



Really enjoyed reading this review...not really a Bond film but your review kind of made me want to check this out.

[rambond]

"Skyfall is where we start",i will only quote this phrase from adele s score, thats how good this movie is