What where the critics thinking?
It really amazes me to read the accolades they poured over this really below average movie, probably the worst Bond film ever...
The only decent (but only decent) part of this movie is the sound and sound editing. Everything else is really, really bad.
Worst of all are the special f/x. Really? A Bond movie with bad special effects? Unfortunately yes. The CGI effects on Silva's 'island' and those at Skyfall mansion are so bad they are ridiculous. In the 21st century we have gotten used to much, much better. I dare to say that the special effects in the Roger Moore movies of the seventies where much better... and they had no computers back then!
Then we come to the screenplay... Oh my god, I do not even know where to begin!
The plot is so full of holes and inconsistencies it is not even funny...
It makes no sense whatsoever. In the beginning the issue is retrieving a stolen list of MI6 agents, but this is completely 'forgotten' half way through the movie...
The villain (Silva, who by the way is so unconvincing it hurts) wants to kill 'M' because of an alleged past betrayal, but basically does everything else but. He could have killed 'M' in a hundred different ways in a dozen situations in the film, but somehow he always chooses 'the hard way'...
In the second half of the film, Bond drags 'M', a frail old lady half way across Britain in order to get away from the villain, with no backup, no outside support (apart from an old and also frail Scottish gamekeeper), only to get her killed at the end of the film... Give me a break!
In my opinion, the main problem with all the recent Bond films (especially those of the 'Daniel Craig era') is that the authors have tried to make the movies 'realistic' which is in antithesis to what Bond is supposed to be.
Bond is supposed to drive cars that double as submarines, he never gets shot, he is never dirty, unshaven or sweating. He is a superhero, not a common mortal. Well, in the new Bond movies, this is all gone, he is dirty, unshaven, ill behaved, etc. All for the sake of 'realism'.
But then, very 'realistically', he gets shot in the chest and subsequently falls of a bridge plunging into a 500 ft. gorge, landing in a river... and survives! Really? How realistic is that?
In this film, the only 'gadgets' Bond gets from the new 'Q' (who by the way is outright laughable in the role) is a Beretta handgun and a radio transmitter. Really? Nowadays, we can all buy those items anywhere for a couple of hundred bucks!
Another major issue with the new Bond films is Daniel Craig.
I think he is the worst Bond in history (even worse than pierce Brosnan). He would probably be better in a 'Die Hard' movie, but not as James Bond!
He does not have any of the Bond stile, the 'Savoir Faire', the charisma...
He doesn't even even have a decent British accent for Christ sake!
To sum it up (but i could really go on for ever), a pitiful plot, horrible special f/x, below par cinematography and a cast of for the most part horribly miscast actors make for one of the worst Bond films ever!
Lets hope the next one is better.
2 out of 2 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.