Critic Review - New York Daily News

Though a notch below "Royale," "Skyfall" follows that reboot's lead, making a now 50-year-old icon as cool as when he began.

October 24, 2012 Full Review Source: New York Daily News | Comments (6)
New York Daily News
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

Sumukh Dicaprio

Sumukh Dicaprio

it's quie better than royale even cast is good in skyfall

Oct 27 - 12:52 AM

Nishan Nath

Nishan Nath

I feel its still a few more notches below Royale.

Nov 3 - 11:38 AM

Krupa Rejeti

Krupa Rejeti

Outdated director, oudated movie, I think They didnt see action films nowadays. We are exepecting BOND movie.. who vl give.. for the last 3 movies are waste movies... Might be story is good, but Its not James Bond movie....

Nov 3 - 10:38 PM

Alex Aston

Alex Aston

You really seem like an idiot when you keep posting the same thing on every positive review. If you don't like the movie you don't have to piss on the majority of people who did by saying that you think the film sucks with every positive review

Nov 4 - 03:05 AM

Alex Aston

Alex Aston

You really seem like an idiot when you keep posting the same thing on every positive review. If you don't like the movie you don't have to piss on the majority of people who did by saying that you think the film sucks with every positive review

Nov 4 - 03:04 AM

Logan L.

Logan Locke

Care to explain bub? Because your explanation for the film is incredibly vague. Then again, you are probably one of those "fans" who swear up and down that Connery is the real Bond, even though Ian Fleyming, were he alive, would disagree. The Craig Bond films are the closest to his novels than any other film in the franchise outside of Dalton's. Bond was not a man who spouted one-liners and used outrageous gadgets. He is a man who is certainly suave and charming, but also brutal and rutless. He keeps his emotions in check to prevent himself from every feeling the kind of emotional pain he suffered after "spoiler"...Vesper's death. He does have physical relationships, but they never lead anywhere serious. The early Bond films were a manufacture of the times: nobody then liked serious characters like that, even though they are realistic. They portrayed him as some wisecracking superhero who almost never had any real injuries, visible or otherwise. I have not seen the film, but chances are, I may walk away feeling this will be the best Bond yet, topping Casino Royale. Now that I am done ranting, I will let you enjoy your day. I have football to prepare to watch. GO COLTS! :)

Nov 4 - 08:21 AM

Logan L.

Logan Locke

Care to explain bub? Because your explanation for the film is incredibly vague. Then again, you are probably one of those "fans" who swear up and down that Connery is the real Bond, even though Ian Fleyming, were he alive, would disagree. The Craig Bond films are the closest to his novels than any other film in the franchise outside of Dalton's. Bond was not a man who spouted one-liners and used outrageous gadgets. He is a man who is certainly suave and charming, but also brutal and rutless. He keeps his emotions in check to prevent himself from every feeling the kind of emotional pain he suffered after "spoiler"...Vesper's death. He does have physical relationships, but they never lead anywhere serious. The early Bond films were a manufacture of the times: nobody then liked serious characters like that, even though they are realistic. They portrayed him as some wisecracking superhero who almost never had any real injuries, visible or otherwise. I have not seen the film, but chances are, I may walk away feeling this will be the best Bond yet, topping Casino Royale. Now that I am done ranting, I will let you enjoy your day. I have football to prepare to watch. GO COLTS! :)

Nov 4 - 08:21 AM

Logan L.

Logan Locke

And I double posted! Great. At least they will get my point twice across! ;)

Nov 4 - 08:23 AM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile