Sorry MGM. This is 2012.

Rating: Null/10 (8 November 2012)

Let's start with this. I'm a huge fan of both "Casino Royale" and Daniel Craig. In contrast with everyone before, he gave a personal touch in the James Bond series, being the first one to play the role on his own and not trying to mime Sean Connery. Good or bad touch, it's anybody's decision, but surely a new one.
Being very disappointed in Quantum of Solace, which was right after the incredible, and genius, Casino Royale, I was expecting that in the year 2012 Skyfall would turn the things around. It's 2012 after all, and James Bond has to keep up with it's time. It has to be worthy of it's age.
Unfortunately, Skyfall hardly met that expectations. There are many good moments in the movie. But there are also big plot holes and some (covered, OK) clichés.
First of all: How on earth did Bond survive that fall in the beginning. A fall like that one would have killed anyone. Especially someone who already had been shot twice. Furthermore, scenario is, from a point on, unreasonably weak. The movie introduces us an amazing bad guy, Havier Bardem, who expresses sensible arguments, displays great confidence, seems extremely intelligent and capable of bringing the whole world on it's knees. And what is this guy's big plan? To kill "M"? Sorry gentlemen, but this is 2012. This whole revenge thing, is very 90's. It fits to bad guys with machine guns and no mind at all, who get killed at the end of the movie by the good guy-after they give us a last, long fight together. It is unacceptable for a villain like Skyfall's Havier Bardem to have a plan like that. Just to kill M for revenge. I mean, come on guys. You can do better than this.
Moreover, Bond takes M to his old home and they wait there all alone for an army to come. And they make no attempt at all to bring any help at any point. This has no reason at all. It's 2012. You must have a way to call the cavalry.
Not to mention that all this talk about Bond's incapability and getting old thing was absolutely pointless and meaningless.
In my opinion this movie get's a 7.5/10. Not bad, but it should have been a lot better. For a movie worth 150 million, having a Daniel Craig at his best (actually, he was in all three movies at his best-only the scenario was differed), an amazing Havier Bardem, an addition of Ralph Fieness, and a great Judi Bench, should have a done a lot better. Sorry MGM. This is 2012.