Decent but not the spectacular ride the marketing and PR bods have done a great job selling. It's essentially a reboot, fair enough. However, the tentacles of the story stretch out too far and the glue holding them together is too thin. Really didn't like the final third with the showdown in Scotland. It was a poor screenwriting choice, IMO, that must've worked better on the page than it ever could have on film. Part of that is likely loaded up in the fact we have effectively a second reboot with the same Bond, so to veer into this territory felt opportunistic rather than fluid and nuanced.

The action scenes were decent and the photography was largely stunning. That cannot cover for the fact Bardem was intro'd far too late and then used too fleetingly once with us. The lulls in pace were ruthlessly exposed by the fact very little narrative drive linked together the Skyfall angle with Bond suffering a I'm-too-old-for-this-moment a la Batman.

On the plus side, I thought Judi Dench was predictably brilliant. Not sure at all about the Moneypenny choice. Not Bond fit and a pretty average actress to boot.

Did you guys see the same film that I did?

I thought this one was great! Okay, maybe not spectacular. But by far, the best of the reboots (and the best Bond movie in years). I'll be honest, I didn't like Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace. Those movies didn't feel like Bond movies to me. Sure, I don't need all the cheesy gadgets and evil henchmen. But give me something even slightly reminiscent of the franchise. And Craig himself has said that those first two films were leading up to this one. I actually appreciate those films more now that I've seen Skyfall.

Kudos to Sam Mendes. Not only did he prove himself to be a competent acting director but the cinematography in Skyfall is gorgeous. The lighting and colors really popped in this film.

Sure there were some pacing issues and the CGI absolutely SUCKED. But I always knew what was going on and the plot was a perfect way to commemorate Bond's 50th anniversary. The film is very self aware in many ways. And I loved Bond's more gritty/dark persona this time around. It's about d amn time.

Although I love Bardem, I wasn't too overly estatic about his performance. Felt a bit weird to me. However I went in with REALLY high expectations. Regardless, I loved his character and the scene where he's fondling Bond. One of the best scenes in the movie IMO.

Plus the third act simply kicks ass. I'm glad they didn't spoil it in the trailers.

F uck the dark knight. And f uck spiderman. I want more Bond.

And that scene where Bond jumps from one train carriage to another before adjusting his cufflinks?! Hello spotted underwear.

This was a serious disappointment.  After hearing all the reviews saying this was the best Bond ever, and that Bardem was the greatest Bond villain ever, it just fell staggeringly short of my expectations.  I loved Casino Royale, and thought Quantum was a decent, if inferior, followup.  But this flick never had the feel of a Bond film, where the nefarious plans of the genius bad guy creates this nonstop propulsion of the story.  Skyfall lagged again and again.  Bardem's character was weird but unmemorable.  And the third act at Skyfall ranch was just ridiculous.  Really, wouldn't the two old folks know better than to turn on a flashlight when there's a death squad a few hundred feet away?  Stuff like that annoyed me.  Craig was solid as ever, but they didn't give him much to work with here.

Idunno, I thought it felt very, very long. Bardem's character got into the game way too late and the third act was pretty...yikes.

Though a decent movie overall this one is imo. the weakest of the Craig-Bond movies.

Meh... plenty of stupid things in it (Bardam can defeat MI6's firewalls but can't find M's home? [JB has done it twice!] Bring a helicopter to an old stone house carrying a chain gun and small arms but no air-to-ground missiles to level the mini-fortress), several good ideas (All you old people gotta go, the world has changed. DNA ID confirming pistol that's good for a single gag...) ... but they don't go anywhere.

WTH would I want a pistol with three green lights effing up my aim + potentially disclosing my position?

WTH would Q plug Bardam's computer directly into MI6's computer?

Bardem wasn't xrayed for buttbombs or goofy appliances in his face?

Since when do James Bond movies have to be perfect? Back in the 70s and 80s, the main concern was to make them and make them halfway entertaining. If they were imperfect, BFD. That's why they rock to this day.

These days, it's like everybody's putting too much effort into Bond films, from the producers to the fans. There's gotta be a quota of action sequences, the villain has to resemble another villain from a trending franchise, plotholes are inexcusable, the story and action should be realistic, there's gotta be nonstop action, etc. Ugh. It's nauseating! (I guess a lot of that pressure comes from MGM, who's in bad financial shape, and must deliver the goods so that the sponsors keep Bond alive.)

Hopefully, since the Broccolis have gone back to the biennial production schedule, a single Bond movie won't make or break the franchise. Maybe everyone will become less concerned with making the perfect movie, and just have fun making or watching James Bond. If not, they should go camp out for the next Chris Nolan film and leave Bond the hell alone.

Quoted from DanBall Since when do James Bond movies have to be perfect? Back in the 70s and 80s, the main concern was to make them and make them halfway entertaining. If they were imperfect, BFD. That's why they rock to this day. These days, it's like everybody's putting too much effort into Bond films, from the producers to the fans. There's gotta be a quota of action sequences, the villain has to resemble another villain from a trending franchise, plotholes are inexcusable, the story and action should be realistic, there's gotta be nonstop action, etc. Ugh. It's nauseating! (I guess a lot of that pressure comes from MGM, who's in bad financial shape, and must deliver the goods so that the sponsors keep Bond alive.) Hopefully, since the Broccolis have gone back to the biennial production schedule, a single Bond movie won't make or break the franchise. Maybe everyone will become less concerned with making the perfect movie, and just have fun making or watching James Bond. If not, they should go camp out for the next Chris Nolan film and leave Bond the hell alone.

#Rant

Can't speak for others, but my analysis certainly wasn't predicated on the search for a perfect Bond movie. There were things I liked, and things I didn't. The latter slightly outweighed the former, hence the analysis. Simple.

You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but the problems you cited are things I'm willing to overlook in a Bond movie. As long as it doesn't stoop to Die Another Day, I'm happy.

I enjoyed Skyfall a lot, but frankly, I enjoyed even the sheer idiocy of Die Another Day's third act over the Scotland ranch business. At least the former was spectacular in its failure. The ranch stuff was just dull (although the explosion was nice; not enough movies end with an enormous explosion these days).

The actor playing Moneypenny was severely uninteresting in every possible way. She came across roughly as realistic as those godawful Komodo Dragons. Dench and Fiennes were excellent, of course, and Whishaw was, I dunno, acceptable. Bardem was the best villain since Ledger's Joker, in my opinion.

It was the grand ol' adventure tone of the movie that kept me engaged and excited. Watching it felt the same as watching the Connery flicks on VHS in my youth, which was great. Lots of flaws aside from the third act, but for the most part forgivable and even occasionally endearing -- some of the outrageously illogical moments made me like the movie all the more. Action movies should have a "kid playing with action figures" feel to them some of the time, and Skyfall definitely had that.

I also can't believe what I'm reading here. Granted, I did have some issues at the start of the film - diving right in and whern it dawns on us what's going on - those pesky Noc lists! - I'll give it two points for, on reflection, serve up the primary motivation for Bardem's Silva. The other thing was got me worried was, as mentioned, the song.

Other than those two things, I loved this film. I thought it was well written, directed and...especially in that third act - the cinematography was stellar. By the way, I thought Bardem was excellent, and might be an Oscar contender again.

Yes, he arrives late (whoopee-frakin' doo! so did Dr. No, once upon a time!) but OFF CAMERA his actions take the fight to MI-6. Suilva, for the most part, dealt with cyber-terrotism. His motivation was pure revenge.  Much is made over M's contreversial yet usually neccesary judgment calls. We were given two examples of it before the title sequence: the agent who dies (who Bond tried to save) and, of course, the order for Eve to take the shot, which results in Bond's injury and forced retirement (although not for long)

This is what drew me in. There is conflict on whether or not M has lost her edge. There is the fact that she fudged numbers in order for Bond, who isn't 100 percent, go get back in the field and go after the assassin. Bond has trouble shooting his handgun on long range. I like this setup. I like it that they explore the characters of both M and Bond. More I like, more I love. I like Silva playing mind games. I loved it when he showed the bad results of a botched cynide capsule.

I didn't mind the length of the film.  I thought the pace was just fine, and was more in tune with the pace of Casino Royale. I think Skyfall is one of the best films of the year.

I can understand people enjoying it...but well written?

Almost every scene is completely stupid.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I can understand people enjoying it...but well written? Almost every scene is completely stupid.

You're completely stupid!

Yes, the cinematography is excellent, we're talking freakin' Roger Deakins here.  But good images don't make the movie.  The plot at time was nonsensical.  Why did no one search anyone's bodies?  I facepalmed so hard when Bond waltzed right in to Bardem's lair and NO ONE TOOK THE RADIO COMMUNICATOR AWAY FROM HIM.

What the hell?  I would've enjoyed the logic and the ladies would have enjoyed a lengthy strip-search scene.

Quoted Text I facepalmed so hard when Bond waltzed right in to Bardem's lair and NO ONE TOOK THE RADIO COMMUNICATOR AWAY FROM HIM.

You must have had a pop or bathroom break when Bond discovered that error was intentional, as Silva wanted to kill kill M personally. Part of Silva's plan was to be captured.

Finally…

Skyfall was released in Australia; we’re a tad behind here. I’ve had a quick peek through previous comments and see it’s a mixed bag on this one, not surprised.

I have to admit enjoying this one but this comes from someone who loves pretty much every Bond movie (Looking forward to my Bond blu-ray boxset this Christmas)

The plot had holes no doubt but there’s been a lot worse – Moonraker coming to mind. Would anybody have survived that initial fall from the bridge with a gunshot wound – probably not and there many other questions like why Bond and M didn’t get more equipped before driving out to the middle of nowhere.

One thing that bothered me for some reason - why didn’t the bad guys check the Aston Martin when walking towards the house? A quick peek through the window wouldn’t have hurt. Surely standard practice for trained killers or even random henchmen.

But on the whole, nearly every Bond movie has these plot holes and I'm willing to overlook them for the sake of entertainment.

Was the pacing slow?  Maybe it was after such a blistering start but this helped give M more screen time which was needed for a more pivotal role.

I also liked the Bond being considered a tired, worn out spy even if this doesn’t really fit in with the previous two Daniel Craig flicks. It gave Bond a flaw – that he wasn’t up to the task and if anything, think they could have played it out more.

I thought Silva was a decent villain, maybe lacked some of the characteristics of previous ones. I wish he didn’t hide his deformity. I liked his motive, he wanted revenge on M, yet I got the sense that he couldn’t push himself to actually kill her, hence why there was no just random bombing of M’s house. He felt betrayed but still loved this mother figure.

As others have mentioned, the action scenes and cinematography were good. I had no problems with the acting and think the new Q (Ben Whishaw) will be a nice addition to the franchise.

Liked it.