After being shot accidentally by his mission partner, Bond goes off the radar, assumed dead by friendly-fire. Very much alive, his loyalty to M is tested when her past comes back to haunt her.
As M, and MI6 as a whole, comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.
This movie was not great for me. I liked the idea of a cybercriminal as a supervillain, in fact the entire opening plot had my attention, but in my eyes it failed to follow through. Daniel Craig, playing Bond, seemed much more of a supporting character, than the lead. The whole pace of this film felt off to me. Bond and the villain meet far too early for my liking, with a striking similarity to 'The Avengers'.
Overall, this film feels more like a bad remake of 'DieHard 4.0'. I found the villain's overtly sexualistic demeanour to be rather unnerving, and his behaviour reminiscent of an overindulged child, grown up. Having not seen too many of the James Bond films (I really need to find the time to do that) I lack the nostalgia necessary to make this a hit.
The action scenes were enjoyable though. With plenty of mayhem, and the occasional plot twist, this film was enjoyable, but not as good as I had hoped. Focused on M, played by Dame Judi Dench, this film would have been better made as a spin off film, as opposed to a straight James Bond film. This film just wasn't really about him.
Bond jsut keeps on going, doesn't he. This is number 27 in the series, and there seems to be no sign of it stopping any time soon, and I for one hope it doesn't.
In Skyfall, someone from M's past has come back to haunt her, and somewhere out there, someone has a list that contains all the names and identity's of MI6's operatives who are in the field. With everything going on, Bond must discover what is happening and who from M's past is behind it all.
As one would expect, there are plenty of action scenes, though, after following Casino Royale and Quantum Solace, this doesn't have as much in the way of action scenes, but I think this was more due to the introduction of new characters to the Bond franchise, which isn't a bad thing. There isn't much in the way of fancy gadgets in this film, but there is plenty to make this another great addition to the Bond series.
As with the previous two, Daniel Craig does a fabulous job playing James Bond, and Judi Dench is fabulous as always playing M, who has a bigger role this film around. All in all, a great film, one that leads well into number 28, which I can't wait to see.
I went to see Skyfall today as a treat to myself for being nowhere near complete with my Christmas shopping. Yeah, I know. Just go with it, okay? I have been watching the 007 spy almost all my life. Everyone has a favourite Bond, mine quite unoriginally is Connery. Hey, that accent is all it takes. However, having seen all of Daniel Craig's Bond outings, I felt I needed to make an effort to see this latest one. I'm glad I did too.
Skyfall was a great follow up after Quantum of Solace. Quantum smacked of "poor me", with the Bond character distant and depressed almost the whole movie. He just wasn't the Bond I remembered or liked. In Skyfall he seems to pick his bottom lip up and takes charge the way you would hope a 00 agent would. In a lot of ways the movie wasn't about him either. Maybe that is why I enjoyed it so much.
Dame Judi Dench got way more airtime, more kick arse lines too. I love how she plays M, so powerful and self-assured. She may be ageing, but she is not out for the count. In fact, ageing was what this film explored. It was actually a bit deep and feely for a Bond film. Maybe I haven't been paying attention all these years. I always thought Bond was about chicks and guns and of course classic, beautiful cars. Don't get me wrong, its a great formula and one they do follow here as well. But then on top of it all, is this narrative about growing old.
Its something we have been seeing a bit of lately in film, since most of our beloved action heroes are ageing. Arnie, Bruce, Sly, Harrison, and the list goes on. As Hollywood begs them back to our big screens, these themes of age vs youth are the focus. And its the right focus, after all their fans are older too and this movie marks the 50th anniversary of Bond. Overall, this film proved that the Bond franchise doesn't deserve to gather dust. I can't wait to see the next film.
As an avid Bond fan since I first saw a re-run of "Dr No" on TV as a nipper, it has been my greatest determination that as long as there are Bond films being made, I will see them... even the naff ones like the 1967 parody of Casino Royale that finally got remade in a serious manner and screened in 2008... which was also the debut of perhaps my favourite bond of all time, Daniel Craig.
Once again, Craig reprises his role as the rough and gritty incarnation of James Bond, Secret Agent 007, licensed to kill, seduce, undo dastardly plots, and of course annoy and frustrate evil villains with witty repartee and poise under pressure. Does he do a good job of it this time? Actually, not as good as in "Casino Royale" or "Quantum of Solace" which really surprised me.
Despite what you may think, this movie's story felt more about 'M' - played by the ever-talented Dame Judi Dench - and less about James Bond himself. In this, he played more a battle-weary knight coming to the rescue, than an avenging angel of the British Empire. There's even an element of 'falling on one's sword' in a few places that gave the Bond character some actual character beyond that of his job. We get insights into his own, internal ethical struggles, his history and early life, and his amazing weapon-improvisation skills... but he still proves to be utterly incapable of holding onto a neat gadget for very long at all!
The new "Quartermaster Q", played by Ben Whishaw, is less of a gadgeteer and more of a reformed cybercriminal type. His line "I could do more damage with my laptop, in my pyjamas before my morning cup of Earl Grey than you could do in an entire year" really sets this story in "today" time... and the pimpled-geek styling of the character sets off Bond's rough-and-action-ready tone beautifully... the contrast plays so well!
I just have to comment on some of the "nostalgia" moments that were thrown in, like the reference to "going back in time" and then climbing into an Aston Martin DB5 - as first seen in "Goldfinger" back in 1964 where it's hidden machine guns were used the first, and only, time prior to this. With the original James Bond theme music laid over the top, and the car cruising through the Scottish highlands... well... I was waiting for Sean Connery to exit the car at some point!
Overall, despite the small patch of anachronistic homoeroticism from Javier Bardem's character "Silva" - which irritated me more for it's brief appearance then confusing me by utterly vanishing from the character - the movie was well worth seeing, in the most part for the actual plot - though still not my all-time favourite - but also because of the session we picked. By going in the morning on a weekday, we shared the cinema with about 6 other viewers, all of whom were more happy up in the rear rows, leaving the prime seats remarkably empty for us to occupy. Seeing Bond on the big screen is definitely the way to see it first time. And hey... the 23rd Bond film, I had to see it on the 23rd of the month.
Random listing from 'Movies'...
Fired for their previous shenanigans, former Vermont Highway Patrol officers Thorny, Farva, Rabbit, Foster, and Mac get a shot at redemption from Capt. O'Hagan and Gov. Jessan. The wacky quintet must provide law enforcement for a French Canadian town that's transitioning to U.S. sovereignty. Their unconventional methods soon get put to the test when they encounter a smarmy mayor, mischievous Mounties, a smuggling ring and a 1,300-pound bear.
All trademarks, images and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective companies.
KIWIreviews is an independent entity, part of the Knock Out News Group. This is a free public forum presenting user opinions on selected products, and as such the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of kiwireviews.nz and are protected under New Zealand law by the "Honest Opinion" clause of the Defamation Act of 1992. KIWIreviews accepts no liability for statements made on this site, on the premise that they have been submitted as the true and honest opinions of the individual posters. In most cases, prices and dates stated are approximate and should be considered as only guidelines.
"If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, then what is baby oil made from?"