Where do you start with how poor this film was. It lacked even the slightest amount off cohesion. According to many we see a more gritty realistic portrayal off bond, thats utter rubbish! What we actually see is someone who is very very poor at his job. First off all bond acts like a petulant teenager running away after mummy gives the order to shoot. Then returning as a wreck he lets an assassin kill 2 guards without intervening. Then he gets into a shower with a sex slave. Then he lets the sex slave die infront off his eyes and quipping "waste off good scotch". Then our super spy has the brilliant plan to take his boss into an isolated dump so he and an old gnome can fight the villains army. Result boss is killed just as villain wanted. Ive no objection to bond being made more gritty but this was not gritty, this film made bond out to be an incompetent fool!
I myself really enjoyed Skyfall, despite its flaws, plot holes, and running time. Daniel Craig does a terrific job as James Bond, for the first time ever in the series, the main Bond girl is someone he loves out of affection and not within a romantic/sexual context. The film shows us a glimpse of Bond's childhood and his previous residence in the third act. I know Skyfall has its plot holes and flaws, but it's a movie, designed for visual spectacle and entertainment. It's not like it's calling for accuracy or to be mutual/equivalent with reality. Silva, despite his screen time, is an illuminating and fun villain, probably the best in the series, and when M dies, it not only brings tears, but also brings forth a hard slap of reality, that sometimes we can't save those closest to us and that things play out how they play out. Skyfall, though flawed, is a terrific, emotional, very enjoyable Bond film that ranks as one of the best Bond films ever, that proves that we can't always have happy endings.
If your expectations are to watch a fun mindless, action summer blockbuster, then I suppose it does it's job. If you're looking for a great spy/action film, with intrigue, suspense, great character development, a cohesive plot, then you will be disappointed. Skyfall gets a little messy and it seems like there are just a bunch of scenes and scenarios strung together because "they would be cool", kind of like an action-film-by-committee check-list was used. Casino Royale raised the bar for me, and Skyfall, just feels like a bit of a mess, lacking the sophistication and depth that was set-up with the franchise reboot of Casino Royale.
I worked at a men's clothing store when Skyfall was released and by the talk of my peers (all men) the movie was the best film that was going to come out since the last Bond film (which apparently was awesome). Having finally watched Skyfall just a few weeks ago, I can say I was fairly disappointed in the film after hearing so much unnecessary hype.
When I see a Bond movie, I expect plot holes in the story. I don't want plot holes but I expect them because experience has taught me that, for some reason I'll never understand, the producers insist that they must ALWAYS be there in EVERY Bond movie. Still, I love Bond movies because of...
1) the great panache-laden Bondian action set pieces
2) the amazing gadgets
3) the coolness of Bond himself -- just watching Bond be Bond.
In Skyfall, we get none of this. A boring crap movies with it's head up it's ass with more plot craters than Moonraker. I felt raped and robbed after watching it.
There was no tension and the climax is..... Well the climax is poor. They should watch the best example of tension and climax which is license to kill. The ending is perfect which gives people thrills. Furthermore,it has three vehicles- a truck, van and a helicopter. It is the best bond film. While Skyfall is ultra weak. The only reason why people like it is because it is the newest. And it has a theme song by a popular singer. Indeed, her singing skills are top notch, however,the song makes no sense.
One of my favorite movies is Casino Royale and Daniel Craig is the perfect James Bond. I felt Skyfall did not have a story and it feels as though the writers didn't have enough time to write a decent plot or is it that they just lost it. Lol They got lazy.
Skyfall has easily the worst script writing I have ever seen on screen. After shooting Bond off of the train, Moneypenny doesn't take the open shot at the villain? Bond survives falling hundreds of feet head first into water after being shot twice? Then he leisurely pulls the bullet from his flesh after the wound has already healed weeks/months later? And don't you just love how after the bond girl reveals her past as a sex slave, Bond intrudes unannounced into her shower? Now that's romantic! Moving on...Silva's "plan" is utterly preposterous! How did he know where the M16 headquarters would be relocated to plan is "genius" subway escape plan? How did he even escape his cell unarmed with two armed M16 operatives standing guard? Why would M16 put his cell in a room that is directly connected to the sewers anyway? And the subway train stunt was simply mind-numbingly atrocious. Also, what was with Bond's superb plan to move M to a place in the middle of nowhere with no manpower, weapons or back-up plan and then lead the villain straight to her? Wouldn't it have made much more sense to hide M elsewhere and lead Silva to a trap? Also, Bond finally kills the villain, but not before his task was completed. Silva wanted to die himself so long as M did as well and guess what, he succeeded. But did Bond succeed in anything throughout the film? The answer is no. He failed in procuring the data in the opening scene, failed the physical and mental exams to be a M16 operative, failed to save the bond girl (as well as the Aston Martin), and finally he failed in preventing Silva from fulfilling his plan. What Bond did succeed in was setting an all-time low point for writing in both the franchise and film in general. Even the themes of the movie are conflicting. The critics/marketing tell us that the new James Bond is more believable, more gritty and more serious than its predecessors, meanwhile the disjointed nonsensical plot, irrational character decisions and cartoonish villain tell us otherwise. All of this adds up to one of the worst and most overrated films in the history of cinema.
The new series of Bond movies may contain Easter Eggs and the like for long time fans, but they lack the true feel of a Bond film. It was certainly a firm action movie, on par with any of the other four dozen released in the same time frame, but it wasn't quite as good as it was made up to be. It was propelled along by the 007 name attached to it more than anything else.
This movie was all hype and trading on the Bond legacy name. It was an average movie, all in all. Lots of actions some intrigue and a few attractive people. However, those things make for a mediocre movie, not a truly good one. As such, I would call Skyfall just "okay".
It was a superb film, one of the best in the 007 series. All in all Skyfall was a great modern Bond film for the 21st century, but it also payed homage to the past with a nice element of retro 60s 007 as well (the car used in Goldfinger, the ending, etc). I love Dench's M, but I have a good feeling about but Ralph Fiennes taking over the role. I thought that Fiennes, Naomie Harris (Moneypenny) and Ben Whishaw (Q) did a fine job and I am glad that they are joining the franchise. Javier Bardem was awesome as Silva, IMHO--a truly menacing character. One of the best Bond antagonists in years. The last 90 seconds or so with the reconstruction of Miss Moneypenny's waiting room and M's office are great. I also really liked how we don't find out that Eve is Miss Moneypenny until the end. And the film just looks great. Mendes did a hell of a job directing and I am glad that he will be back for Bond 24. And to those who think that Craig's Bond isn't as charming as past 007s and find him to be humorless--his charm and humor are far more subtle, but it's there. Next to Dalton, Craig plays Bond probably the closest to Fleming's literary character. People who claim that Daniel Craig isn't a good Bond because he isn't like Sean Connery or Roger Moore probably never read the books. Bond 24 has a great deal of potential and a lot to live up to.