It's really a good movie. The only thing wrong is actually Craig. Not that he is a bad actor, but because he has become to old for that type of roles. He just looks out of place.

Even though he has a contract for two more films, I would say that they should get an other bond.

"Its good to have James Bond back".

Sorry to bust your bubble MovieBoB but James Bond never left and has not been better since the days of Timothy Dalton. Contrary to popular belief James Bond was never meant to be slap stick nonsense which is what happened when Roger Moore's era took the reins and was always portrayed as thriller spy stories in the vein of Dalton and Craig's movies.

Go read the original Casino Royale and you will see just how true to the original bond these movies are.

Gizmo1990:
I loved it but is it just me or is Daniel Craig starting to look a little old for the part? I think he could still do another one but if they wait too long then they will have the same problem that Roger Moore had. He looked like he needed a wheel chair and a tank of oxygen in A View to a Kill.

Not really, he still younger then any other James Bond actor, that were there for more then one movie, at the time of their last movie in the series. So only George Lazenby, who also happen to have been the youngest actor to take the role, since he was 30 at the time of his first and only James Bond movie release.

-Sean Connery, 51 at release of Diamond Are Forever.
-Roger Moore, 58 at release of A View to Kill.
-Timothy Dalton, 45 at release of License to Kill (admit this one is disputable since some official source make write is birth year has 46 instead of 44, which would put him 1 year younger then Graig, but he also should have been in one more movie, if there had not been 5 year delay for GoldenEye due to lawsuit, but then we wouldn't have got GoldenEye on N64 without those delay, hmmm not sure what to think about that situation...)
-Pierce Brosman, 49 at release of Die Another Day.
-Daniel Graid, 44 at release of Skyfall.

So I say he still got one or two movies possible under his belt.

I often disagree with Bob but when he basically states my oppinion on something word for word I can't help but smile.

Skyfall was great, without spoiling anything, it has Kommodo Dragons in it... yeah.

daxterx2005:
Are all the Bonds in continuity with one another?
Or are they rebooted with each new actor?

Here is what I told my brother when I introduced him to Bond. This is opinion in my book. Each one is the embodiment of the time. Each one is the same story, but only things like the actor is changed so the story can be told again to someone new. You don't have to see the other ones to understand the story, they only help enjoy it more.

I got to agree with Movie Bob and Jurassic Park in 3D. Still the only movie I have seen 3 times in theater. Hopefully that will become 4.

I guess "Bob, James Bob" was too obvious a pun for the closing credits, huh? Or maybe too obscure, actually. Oh well. Good review, Mr. Chipman; I've certainly never been actually interested in a Bond movie before, but you make it sound like it would be worth the watching.

You know, I actually thought Bob was going to talk about Lincoln, since Skyfall had COMPLETELY slipped my mind. Then I realized it's apparently the biggest thing going on this week. Yeah, I'm not the biggest James Bond fan, but it's not like I hate the series, I just never got into them.

Gorr:
It's really a good movie. The only thing wrong is actually Craig. Not that he is a bad actor, but because he has become to old for that type of roles. He just looks out of place.

Even though he has a contract for two more films, I would say that they should get an other bond.

He still younger then any previous Bond on their last movie, except for George Lazenby, who only stared in one movie and who is the youngest bond to this day.

TheMadJayWoman:
Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw and Judi Dench.

This could be the newest Adam Sandler movie instead of the latest Bond film, I would still be excited. All spy/action stuff is just icing on the cake at this point.

And what if Adam Sandler WAS the new James Bond!? :O

I actually kind of want to see this now.

Well said - I thought Casino Royale was a good film and Quantum of Solace was alright - though there isn't much I remember about it in way of set pieces, other than that hotel in the middle of the desert somewhere...

This film was great though, and that opening sequence! That's one way to change carriage.

Also, the "Welcome to Scotland" line (no spoilers!) may have been a bit obvious, but it went down well here when it cropped up...:)

Good review, Bob! I was wondering what the plot was, & you put a good spin on the old vs. new intelligence methodologies. And Q's back! Did he just turn Bond's Walther PPK into a Judge's LawMaster?

captcha:Get DISH Now
Uh, what's the big hurry?

I heard some rumor that Idris Elba was being considered for the next Bond. That'd be cool.

Also, I don't know why you dislike the fighting in ze'bat-a-man so much.

is a excellent movie, but the villain's plans was just too unbelievable, i mean British public transport on time? preposterous!

Great review for a great movie. It really picked me up after the utter disappointments that were Prometheus and Looper.

Ralph Fiennes as the new M? Oh god yes!

Captcha: I have fallen...

Couldn't disagree more about the last third of the film. Wholly unnecessary and an utter disappointment. The courtroom scene should have been the climax.

Far too many flaws in this movie. I found Skyfall to be exactly like Final Fantasy XII: Respectable in its own right, but not whatsoever comparable or enjoyable in relation to any other entries in its series. Craig is a poor Bond, his films represent much of what is wrong with current action movies (all of which want to be Bourne, which is hardly something to aspire to be), the dialogue was more modern drivel (nothing but terse comebacks), Q was abysmal (straight out of USA Network tripe), and so on. Craig's Bond has no charm; he is all edge, which simply doesn't work. Dalton's Bond had edge, but it was the subtle underpinning of an overall fascinatingly-constructed character. The fact that Dalton was on edge actually meant something. Craig is detached, uninterested, and dull.

Positives? Bardem was excellent, the cinematography was stunning, and the opening theme was great. Judged completely independently of anything else, Skyfall is a good movie, and one which I would recommend. It just isn't a good Bond film.

The Great JT:
That's part of what I thought Craig's Bond was missing, was that he was just kind of flat. He never smiled, he never seemed to have that swagger, especially in QoS, he was just kind of a cardboard cutout. Judging by the review, he's got it back for now.

Nobody could maintain swagger in the dreck that was QoS's primary plot(The secondary big picture stuff was good as far as it went, which was at max 5 minutes of screen time). Even with that 5 minutes the movie was the worst Bond movie ever.

maninahat:

daxterx2005:
Are all the Bonds in continuity with one another?
Or are they rebooted with each new actor?

It's never brought up. The fan theory is that "James Bond" is just a code name which each new agent takes on, along with the 007 title (hence the different actors with the same name). That theory isn't correct though. There is only meant to be one real James Bond, and all the actors are meant to be the same guy.

Most of the movies lack any sense of interconnectivity* anyway, so it isn't really meant to be noticed. They're built to be interchangeable.

*with the exception of Jaws, a leg injury and the most recent trilogy.

getoffmycloud:

daxterx2005:
Are all the Bonds in continuity with one another?
Or are they rebooted with each new actor?

Yes they are all in continuity with I suppose Daniel Craig being the exception as it is an origin story set after the time period of the other films but as books they all are.

mykalwane:

daxterx2005:
Are all the Bonds in continuity with one another?
Or are they rebooted with each new actor?

Here is what I told my brother when I introduced him to Bond. This is opinion in my book. Each one is the embodiment of the time. Each one is the same story, but only things like the actor is changed so the story can be told again to someone new. You don't have to see the other ones to understand the story, they only help enjoy it more.

I got to agree with Movie Bob and Jurassic Park in 3D. Still the only movie I have seen 3 times in theater. Hopefully that will become 4.

Thanks for you replies guys

Reading all the previous posts I feel very alone in this forum. Where are all the die hard Bond fans who can appreciate the subtleties and brilliance of this movie. The final act of the film may not have been very Bond in the typical sense, but the themes and ideas behind it are so interesting and well executed that I enjoyed it a lot.

And the ending is superb. No discussion.

So what about that secret Quantum organization they were building up in the first two movies has it been thrown away due to this new movie?

The Bane-Batman fight was filmed perfectly. Get over it.

And Mendes turned down The Avengers.

Hm.... this makes it sound like the Bond movie I've been waiting for. I remember at the end of Casino Royale, that final scene had me thinking "oh hell yeah, origin story's over, next movie Bond is gonna be 100% full Bond".

And then I watched Quantum of Solace and it seems like he kind of reverted to an even less Bondlike state for that movie. I'll definitely be checking this out to see if they finally got Craig's Bond character complete.

The Great JT:
That's part of what I thought Craig's Bond was missing, was that he was just kind of flat. He never smiled, he never seemed to have that swagger, especially in QoS, he was just kind of a cardboard cutout. Judging by the review, he's got it back for now.

... Did nobody watch Casino Royale? I guess they've probably melted into one another in people's minds a little, but Royale has a very definite sense of humour. (I actually thought it handles humour better than Skyfall, which tries too hard to get laughs at certain points.) It's dry as hell, but people keep claiming it's laden-faced and that Craig's Bond doesn't have any sense of humour or look like he's having fun, which is total crap.

Plinglebob:

CynicalB:
C'mon Bob

It's a not a great movie, the first 60 min are maybe the worst in Bond history and the (car) chase at the start of the movie is terrible but when Javier Bardem comes into play the movie gets really good, really fast.

My thoughts to the letter. I also want to thank Bob for putting his finger on why Casino Royale really didn't work for me (Never saw Quantum). I get why people like the new Bond, with the deeper character and more realistic action, but if I wanted that I'd go see a Bourne film or one of the dozens of other action films good and bad that have come out since. When I go to a James Bond film, I go expecting a James Bond film, not a Bourne rip-off.

It's not a Bourne rip-off just because you're no longer watching a franchise smother itself in unintentional self-parody.

daxterx2005:
Are all the Bonds in continuity with one another?
Or are they rebooted with each new actor?

Very, very loosely in the past, at choice moments. Since Casino Royale, there's been a much stronger sense of continuity.

so, its good, and i still havent seen the last 2 bond movies. i guess i have to rent them one day. but for now, im not rushing to see it. i still think the older once are the best with connery and moor.

Aiddon:
And seriously Bob, cut it out with the goddamned lowblows at Nolan and Batman, it's gotten old.

In all fairness, they kinda deserve it.

More generally, good review, captures more or less what's going on with the movie without spoilers. Good job, man.

Not that it's hard to predict a Bond movie, spoilers or no, but still: the review seems to basically summarize how I felt upon seeing the movie.

Azurian:
So what about that secret Quantum organization they were building up in the first two movies has it been thrown away due to this new movie?

If you're in a thread about bond movies and you aren't even vaguely aware about the fact that SPECTRE is a thing or how it relates to the franchise... dude, you need to consider watching more movies before commenting, because that's on the order of joining a politics thread without knowing what a democracy is. If you're trying to discuss an action movie and you're not familiar with SPECTRE I'm not sure that anyone with even passing knowledge of the genre even has the vocabulary to explain this to you, it's like trying to explain why adults take sex so seriously to a five year old.

SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILLLLLLLERSSSSS! SPOILERS!

This is the worst Bond movie ever made. Forgot Bond movie....it's the worst action film I have seen.
What is wrong with everyone??!

Every single time the plot advances there are several new plot holes and contrivances.

How does Craig continue fighting with a bullet in him? I know his awesome hard but his not terminator

Bond was being held up by the throat on the train in the specific angle? this was the most imaginative way they could use to 'kill off Bond' and make him all upset about being betrayed?
Not only is it overdone but it's still full of plot holes.

Bond could hear the order- he could of just dropped to the floor

Why didn't Naomi keep shooting?

How did Bond survive 2 bullet wounds and that fall? Bourne or the punisher survive..because this is how their journey begins...it's what makes them special. You can't do something like that to an already special established character

So we are just going to explain everything by hacking magic? can we have hacking defined in this universe because it's a bit vague- like how, the context, the limitations...kind of like how die hard 4, goldeneye do it? for all i know silva could of programmed a satellite to fall on people.

Bond pulls a uranium tipped bullet shrapnel out of his chest? led poisoning? does this isotope of uranium cause cancer? Only 3 baddies in the world use this bullet?!! his a ghost! but here's his flight manifesto! This is how we are going to advance the plot??!?!

Bond can't shoot and has crap fitness? is it mental or physical? -i need to watch it again.
Half way through the film his 100% again

Bond follows an assassin and allows him to kill people. But in casino royale and QoS he grew into a character that at first didn't care (half monk half hitman) but then became a good guy (fell in love, saved cammille- even though he didn't have to). As part of a trilogy this is inconsistent.

The bad guys escape- the joker's was creative; silva had a convenient trap door? are you kidding me?!! I know lets put the hacker in a cell that's connected and controlled by our computer network. Lets not connect Silva's laptop to an isolated computer..this is hollywood hacking 101 stuff since 1997.

Silva hacks everything and has planned everything but his master plan is a firefight in a courtroom?! Why not just kidnap M with hacking.

Now i think about it..what did silva achieve by being caught? He could of had a convo with M at any time because hacking can do everything now. The joker got that chinese accountant person...silva got a free flight to london!

knowing all this lets go back to the start;

Why are there only 2 agents (+ 1 dead) trying to get the macgiffin list?

How did the bad guys get it...what was it doing in turkey?

What happened to the list half way through?

I thought this was a good way to start it...but looking at the lack of imagination & creativity throughout the rest of the film it was clear they just couldn't think of a reason. Even charlies angels 2 thought up those '2 rings'.

I'm going to stop here...the plot holes and stupidities of every character involved continue and i probably missed a lot out.
The point is a film like dark knight will have far fewer plot holes and stupid moments and when they do occur atleast Nolan isn't regurgitating easy plot devices and is being a bit more creative about it. You can do mind gymnastics to answer questions but after about 5 major ones narrative coherence goes into the toilet.

Why is Q, the quartermaster a master hacker, programmer? These are completely different skill sets.

The themes are lame; james Bond in a new world. we did this in goldeneye already. and the last 2 movies, financing terror/civil wars, natural resources....i don't think we need this theme...just a harvey dent conference moment for skyfall.

There is nothing 'deep' about going back to skyfall/parents house. I can make a dozen fanfictions about the main character going to his old house to get cheap applause.

QoS wasn't well made. but the story was good. part of the origin story, same book. Bond is on a rampage trying to get revenge/understanding/solace about what happened to vesper. At the same time all this Quantum stuff is going on, CIA and his own government are involved with them. At the end the issues for casino royale are resolved and he becomes the more balanced Bond we know.
Craig is 'angry' throughout the entire movie because he is supposed to be;Bond doesn't talk about his feelings so he does it mostly through action. the audience are left wondering if he really is out of control.
If they didn't execute this so the typical audience member didn't get it..then fair enough.. but i expect a movie critic/reviewer to be able to appreciate what they were trying to do and comment on it- Not like mark kermode who complains because he can't even understand the title! youtube his review if you want to see useless.

We are in a new era of stupid.

ravenshrike:
Even with that 5 minutes the movie was the worst Bond movie ever.

I don't think you've seen Moonraker...