Skyfall (2012)

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.

__________________

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.

For me it's Connery and Craig.

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.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

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

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

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.

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.

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



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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.