Read Mixed User Reviews for Casino Royale (2006)

6

JoeB.Dec 9, 2006

After entering the theater to see what was supposed to be the best Bond film ever made, I came out with the satisfaction of seeing an O.k. action movie. The only parts that I thought were Bond-worthy was the beginning free running segment After entering the theater to see what was supposed to be the best Bond film ever made, I came out with the satisfaction of seeing an O.k. action movie. The only parts that I thought were Bond-worthy was the beginning free running segment and the fuel truck incident. I know its supposed to be the beginning for Bond thus the reason for no gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, and why he starts out in a Ford. But really I don't think anyone cares about how Bond obtained these items or met these people in the first place. And the product placement got annoying at times. The producers need to change something--either get rid of Daniel Craig or make a movie that is true to the rest of the franchise.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

AugustusS.Nov 23, 2006

First off: the best Bond since Connery. Second off: that's not saying much. I don't mind that they're trying to reinvent Bond--not, as some have suggested, transplanting Connery's Bond into the modern day--and Craig does First off: the best Bond since Connery. Second off: that's not saying much. I don't mind that they're trying to reinvent Bond--not, as some have suggested, transplanting Connery's Bond into the modern day--and Craig does a fine job, taking a little from each of his predecessors. The movie is cool, action-packed, suspenseful, but, as all action movies are these days, cheesy. Terribly, terribly cheesy and cliched. "Oh James, if all that was left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd be more of a man than any man I've ever met." "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger." Who wrote that? Whoever thought of that interchange should be shot. Repeatedly. I had high hopes for this one, I really did, but bad writing ruined it. Think of "Mission Impossible" meets "Syphon Filter" (or any action video game, actually), and you've got "Casino Royale." Not necessarily a bad thing, but will probably be a better game than a movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

SteveK.Mar 21, 2007

This movie was just weird for me. [***Mild Spoilers***] I think they achieved the goal of psychoanalyzing Bond how he became a cold-hearted emotionally aloof badass, but as for the story, it had too many holes and the whole movie was weirdly This movie was just weird for me. [***Mild Spoilers***] I think they achieved the goal of psychoanalyzing Bond how he became a cold-hearted emotionally aloof badass, but as for the story, it had too many holes and the whole movie was weirdly paced. It went from heart-stopping action to a really bizarre torture scene that seemed like a first-grader made up and then it turned into some sappy love story only to thrust you back into action with hardly any explanation. I like that they tried to make a grittier, cold-blooded Bond but it was just a little weird for me. And when the end came ultimately, it wasn't very satisfying.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MichaelP.Nov 19, 2006

This film seems to lack focus--it felt like a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation, as if the director and others couldn't quite agree on how things should be. I don't think the movie holds up well compared to many of the This film seems to lack focus--it felt like a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation, as if the director and others couldn't quite agree on how things should be. I don't think the movie holds up well compared to many of the older classics. While the dialogue is quite good in places, it's flat in others. The stakes are vague, and the climax is also fuzzy. Furthermore, there is not much there in terms of Bond punishing the villian, not much sense of any justice. I think the choices for the two lead actors (Bond and his love interest) could have been better. This particular James Bond lacks the class and finesse of Sean Connery. The only thing that consistently shines in this film are the awesome action scenes. Without them, I'd only give it a 3 or 4.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

PhiloR.Nov 26, 2006

it was too long, got boring towards the end. initial chase seem was great, but downhill after that. i would not recommend.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

BMRNov 29, 2006

Lot's of shiny cars and beautiful locales but not much of a compelling storyline. Worst of all; the main character is misogynistic, unsympathetic and one dimensional. If you' re between the age of 13 and 21 and you enjoy watching Lot's of shiny cars and beautiful locales but not much of a compelling storyline. Worst of all; the main character is misogynistic, unsympathetic and one dimensional. If you' re between the age of 13 and 21 and you enjoy watching the hero beat everyone's asses and spout off cheesy on liners, than you MIGHT enjoy this movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

AlexG.Dec 9, 2006

This movie is quite over-rated as seen by its score on metacritic. The consensus that seems to be going around is that this is a grittier, darker Bond is actually an illusion. Sure we see Bond get his arse kicked, but that doesn't make This movie is quite over-rated as seen by its score on metacritic. The consensus that seems to be going around is that this is a grittier, darker Bond is actually an illusion. Sure we see Bond get his arse kicked, but that doesn't make it darker, grittier etc. The fight scenes are still over the top- typical of all Bond movies. The use of the bulldozer at the start by Bond reinforces this point, there was really just no need for him to pursue his foe in it. Another really annoying thing in this move was the product placement. The close up of the cell phones in particular are just embarrassing. 'The Departed' featured no such advertising on its close up cell phone shots if i recall correctly. It wouldn't have beeen so bad if it was discrete, but its obvious everything was placed in specific ways to get a good shot in by the camera. The poker scenes during the middle of the film were just so silly and slowed the movie down. An example of this is shown in the deciding hand when there was a four-way all in on the flop, and we see hands like full houses, flushes, all to be beaten by Bonds straight flush- what a joke. I don't understand why the film needed such stupid hands- audiences are not that dumb. After all, don't 50 million people in America play poker? Aside from these negatives, I can't fault Daniel Craig here, who gives a solid portrayal of James Bond. Peirce Brosnan's efforts look terrible compared to this. The love story is also effective. This could have been such a good movie, and a chance to finally revitalize the franchise much like 'Batman Begins' did. Unfortuantely this really isn't the case.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

LukeMar 12, 2007

Overrated...not like a true Bond movie, seems to be more about FX. Plot seems to fall on its face and never goes to where it should.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ConorS.Jun 27, 2007

The film isn't bad for a thriller, but it's not just supposed to be a thriller: it's supposed to be a Bond movie. There's no Q, no Moneypenny, no ironically funny moments, no outrageous action. Too much time is spent at The film isn't bad for a thriller, but it's not just supposed to be a thriller: it's supposed to be a Bond movie. There's no Q, no Moneypenny, no ironically funny moments, no outrageous action. Too much time is spent at the card table with "Le Chiffre," who seems to aspire to be the least intimidating Bond villain ever. The music is bad as well.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JacobL.Nov 15, 2008

Casino Royale starts out as a promising movie. Early on in the movie you have a great epic chase scene along with James Bond tracking down terrorists which makes the movie really exiciting. However, once we get to Casino Royale the plot gets Casino Royale starts out as a promising movie. Early on in the movie you have a great epic chase scene along with James Bond tracking down terrorists which makes the movie really exiciting. However, once we get to Casino Royale the plot gets very deep and hard to follow and eventually starts to drag and become boring. There is a climax at the end of the movie but by then you won't even care about what's going on. What sucks is that Casino Royale could have been a good movie. It had action, mystery, and a cool main character. However, the writers tried to do too much and made what seems like a great movie at first into a dull and uninteresting movie about a guy in a tuxedo who works for the British Secret Service. That being said it's deffinetly worth checking out for fans of the series. But, if this is your first James Bond movie you'd be better off sitting this one out.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

LucasW.Feb 16, 2008

I thought the story line was much to random and it dragged on for a bit, but nevertheless its a James bond movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

TommyM.Nov 29, 2006

It's a good movie, but it's not a James Bond movie. Tho I like Daniel Craig and his acting, but for some reason he's just not right for this role. Maybe it's a very difficult move to replace Pierce Brosnan who was just It's a good movie, but it's not a James Bond movie. Tho I like Daniel Craig and his acting, but for some reason he's just not right for this role. Maybe it's a very difficult move to replace Pierce Brosnan who was just right for this role. Also, in this one, no gadgets and other typical Bond stuff we got use to. But a good movie overall.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ShaunSDec 26, 2006

Far to long for it's own good. Trying to hard to be to real, give me a bit of gadgits I say. He still can't touch the master Shaun C.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

NKOASNov 17, 2012

Admittedly, Bond had gotten silly by this entry, with invisible cars and diamond-faced baddies. And since the gritty reboot is all the rage, Martin Campbell gives us what can only be dubbed as "The Bond Identity", stripping away not only allAdmittedly, Bond had gotten silly by this entry, with invisible cars and diamond-faced baddies. And since the gritty reboot is all the rage, Martin Campbell gives us what can only be dubbed as "The Bond Identity", stripping away not only all the gadgets, but all of the style, the humor and the atmosphere of a Bond film. Sure, it's a fine action film (despite its ending dragging on for far too long), and relaunching the franchise after the abysmal Die Another Day was certainly necessary. But much like an immunization, just because something is necessary doesn't mean its fun.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

etoppJan 1, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really can't understand the love for this movie. Daniel Craig is boring. Why do we care what a tortured soul he is? Only one movie into the franchise, he barely qualifies as a "00" agent since he has only just started killing but he has had enough as a character and as an actor as well. The plot is nonsensical. This is supposed to be a "gritty reboot" but it is totally unrealistic. At least with previous Bond movies, they were never pretending to be anything but mindless escapism. Apparently, Ericsson phones (so much product placement) allow you to find anyone on the planet. The first third of the movie is just a tedious setup for the main plot: Bond is sent to Montenegro (I suppose France was too expensive) to gamble British Treasury millions vs the baddie. Bond loses all the UK money so Felix Leiter gives him some CIA money. The baddie (an international criminal presumably wanted by Interpol) is supposed to be handed over to the CIA but no! The baddie grabs the girl so that Bond will follow and be tortured. Bond has just been brought back from the brink of death because his supercar has a defibrillator. Does M send someone to Montenegro to find Bond? No - he is rescued by unknown persons and goes to a private health clinic to recover. Then he goes off cruising on a yacht. Then the girl steals the money and gives it to an unknown baddie in a suitcase to set up a pointless chase/final battle. M then tells Bond the girl's background - maybe she shouldn't have been given all that money in the first place. Not to worry - Ericsson to the rescue again! Bond goes back to the health clinic to shoot another unknown baddie in the leg. THE END What a farrago of drivel!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

DudesofThoughtOct 20, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Transitions happened at the drop of a hat and the "subtleties" are f***ing obvious.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BenJ.Dec 1, 2006

Hats off to Daniel Craig for brining the right amount of (much needed) grit to the role. However his achievements, coupled with some great set pieces, are runied by a ridiculous running time, and a terribly hammy final quarter. Drop the Hats off to Daniel Craig for brining the right amount of (much needed) grit to the role. However his achievements, coupled with some great set pieces, are runied by a ridiculous running time, and a terribly hammy final quarter. Drop the drawn out ending, shave 40 minutes off the films length and you'd have a great film. Sadly, this is only average.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

CobiWanDec 17, 2006

I am sorry but I was really disappointed...not much of a love story and a long poker game...lacking real bond action.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

SamMar 19, 2007

Great action sequences WITHOUT the use of CGI (psst, Die Another Day) and Craig is an excellent James Bond, but the plot was very sub-par.

3 of 7 users found this helpful

5

CornCDec 3, 2006

Bond is presented as a "realistic", sentimental, anti-hero. Rather in bad taste if you ask me.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

HélèneNov 27, 2006

This is exactly what Bond didn't need: more "realism". Or actually more violence I should say. Now let us proceed to the examination of the ten points that make a good James Bond movie, and rate the film accordingly. 1) The gun barrel This is exactly what Bond didn't need: more "realism". Or actually more violence I should say. Now let us proceed to the examination of the ten points that make a good James Bond movie, and rate the film accordingly. 1) The gun barrel sequence: has been removed (!!!) Shame. A very clumsy attempt to include it at the end of the flashback introduction, but in very poor taste. 2) The "Bond, James Bond" line. Last line of the movie. OK. 3) The "vodka martini, shaken not stirred" line. It appears, but in a very iconoclast way. Let's count half a point. 4) The Moneypenny scene. No trace of her in the whole movie. Shame. 5) The hotel scene (someone, girl or enemy, awaits for Bond in his room): well let's say it's there - quite a lot happens in hotels. 6) The casino scene. No problem for that point, the main plot being Bond playing against the bad guy. 7) The Q briefing. No trace of Q nor R in this film. Shame. 8) The bit of nonsense: the Medipac scene is quite enjoyable in that respect but we can feel in general that the producers fear that things appear too unrealistic, whereas it is precisely the point in Bond movies. We want unbelievable, cheesy things! 9) The funny lines: eternal shame on Eon Prod for having given birth to a humourless James Bond. No funny line AT ALL. 10) The "James Bond will return" quotation at the end of the credits: doesn't appear, and I sincerely hope this James Bond will NOT return! Total: 4,5/10, which I round up to 5 because I'm good.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JackD.Nov 26, 2006

Just an average movie. The high critical review caused me to anticipate an amazing film. However, the movie just does not deliver. I felt like Bond wasn't Bond at all. He didn't embody an invincible man who is smooth, clever, and Just an average movie. The high critical review caused me to anticipate an amazing film. However, the movie just does not deliver. I felt like Bond wasn't Bond at all. He didn't embody an invincible man who is smooth, clever, and likeable. Craig made the character too rough, dark, and unappealing. His new take on Bond may have actually been worse than his acting. Aside from that I didn't hate the bad guy enough. This is due to the poor character development. Also the movie lacks the typical amoiunt of action in a Bond movie as well as the gadgets And where the hell is "Q"?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

DerrickHDec 11, 2006

I am a James Bond fan and this was the lamest Bond I have ever seen!!! Where were the gadgets, the cars, the suspense. Wait for the DVD, better yet, tv. I could have saved my 9.50.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

arrivistOct 26, 2020

Le Cinema de Papa is alive and well in this Bond incarnation. Lavish sets and costumes cover for clumsy dialogue acting. The producers wanted a more realistic bond and opted for Craig, looking like a smashed up Rugby player on a heavy steroidLe Cinema de Papa is alive and well in this Bond incarnation. Lavish sets and costumes cover for clumsy dialogue acting. The producers wanted a more realistic bond and opted for Craig, looking like a smashed up Rugby player on a heavy steroid cycle, grunting and dragging his knuckles along the floor as he goes. There are some strong moments but they are quickly replaced by generic B.S.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

GaborA.Nov 17, 2006

A couple of good ideas are lost in a muddle of contradictions and flaws. The new Bond is interesting, but too bad he doesn't have an adversary. The film tries to make up for this with forced twists. For the first time a Bond movie has A couple of good ideas are lost in a muddle of contradictions and flaws. The new Bond is interesting, but too bad he doesn't have an adversary. The film tries to make up for this with forced twists. For the first time a Bond movie has metaphorical significance and a darker side, but also for the first time Bond has nothing to do but get lucky in poker in this plotless, paceless entry. Its a shame considering the brave decisions, but at least I'm curious to see where this goes.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

RobM.Nov 18, 2006

No action at all in this movie compared to ones with Peirce. Trhs movie is not very characteristic of a bond film. It is often slow at times and goes on for lengthy periods with out adding to the plot. Do yourself a fvor and wait till it No action at all in this movie compared to ones with Peirce. Trhs movie is not very characteristic of a bond film. It is often slow at times and goes on for lengthy periods with out adding to the plot. Do yourself a fvor and wait till it comes out on video.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JayW.Feb 16, 2007

In my opinion, James Bond has risen to the rank of comic book superhero. By this I mean: nobody is smarter, nobody has skill, and like Batman, nobody can beat all of his gadgets. This said, I love James Bond. Everytime you walk inot 1 of In my opinion, James Bond has risen to the rank of comic book superhero. By this I mean: nobody is smarter, nobody has skill, and like Batman, nobody can beat all of his gadgets. This said, I love James Bond. Everytime you walk inot 1 of these movies, you know that you are going to get a completely unbelievealbe thrill ride as some villian seeks to take over the world...that is until "Casino Royale". In this movie, they attempted to make James real & fragile. If I want to see a real & fragile spy movie, I go rent "Spy Game". To me, they robbed James of his gadgets & swagger which essentially killed the character. Yes, I know that this was Flemmings first story, but "first" doesn't always mean "best". Some writers really struggle with their characters in the beginning while they try to figure them out. To me, this is the version on James Bond that Flemming left on the cutting room floor for a reason.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

NatyN.Nov 28, 2006

As a Bond Movie fan, very dissapointed. A new human Bond??? Who asked for it???? We Bond fans are still fans for the gadgets, the women, the funny lines.....very dissapointed.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

DavrosD.Dec 16, 2006

Average story and boring Bond girls. Daniel Craig only just cuts it, maybe if there was a better plot, it would improve it somewhat.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

KenT.Dec 19, 2006

This move is OVER RATED, this is the worst 007 I've seen. The only good part was the begining, though the whole move, I was waiting for more action. I will not buy this when it comes out on DVD.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

AMovieCriticNov 18, 2006

One of the most boring "action movies" I've ever seen. Now, I'm not exactly a huge Bond fan, but I've seen a few of them, and in general, they're fun movies. After the last few relied on high tech items and over-the-top One of the most boring "action movies" I've ever seen. Now, I'm not exactly a huge Bond fan, but I've seen a few of them, and in general, they're fun movies. After the last few relied on high tech items and over-the-top situations, the producers here tried to create a more realistic Bond movie this time...it ends up not being any fun AT ALL. The recent Bond movies were exciting. They had action, cool effects, and great situations. Yes, in Die Another Day, it was over the top and implausible that he surfed into the villain's HQ and that the showdown took place in BMW's on the ice...but it was exciting and fun. Casino Royale, in trying to be more realistic, spends almost the entire movie with them sitting around a card table. The villain....doesn't do ANYTHING in the entire movie. The only good action scenes are in the movie's first 45 minutes and by the end, they're totally forgotten. (This is a 2 hour and 20 minute movie, too.) The idea was to make Bond seem more like a real person. No longer is he basically invincible. He gets smashed around, he is almost killed on many occasions, his plans almost always seem to fail, and he seems borderline inept at times. The result is a hero who is just no longer cool. He spends almost the entire movie playfully arguing with the Bond girl, who lacks any of the mystery and seductive attitude that make other Bond girls so appealing. Again, they try to make their relationship realistic and the center of the movie, but it ends up being boring. The locations weren't great (Bourne Supremacy DESTROYS it in this area,) the action scenes (the few that are there) are only okay, the plot is almost non-existant, and unless you know how to play Poker, you will be lost for at least 40 minutes of this movie. Critics seemed to have loved this movie, which is proof that once again, they're out of touch with the average moviegoer. At least, in the theater I saw this movie in, where the crowd was noticeably antsy and unimpressed after this overlong and slow movie ended.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JAMESN.Nov 23, 2006

I agree with ALL who gave low ratings about this movie. I am a BIG FAN of Bond. This is the WORST bond movie I have ever seen. Right from the get-go, lousy action, extremely limitted dialogue, no coherent plot (very sketchy) whatsoever. I agree with ALL who gave low ratings about this movie. I am a BIG FAN of Bond. This is the WORST bond movie I have ever seen. Right from the get-go, lousy action, extremely limitted dialogue, no coherent plot (very sketchy) whatsoever. Addtionally, I thought Daniel Craig was severly defficient in class, sophistication and looks. He looked pretty much like a beaten up POW who managed to escape some detention facility located in the middle of no where, in pursuit of a means of living. The only thing I am a little impressed about the movie is Bond's Car. Action sequence was lousy. Romance scene was pathetic because Daniel Craig is lacking the charm, smoothness and looks. Overall, I was tottally dissapointed and NO WAY does this Bond Movie do justice to the long legacy of Bond characters like Sean Connery, Roger Moore (My favorite Bond), and Pierce Brosnan. I don't know what the director was thinking.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

ConstantNov 25, 2006

First of all this is very violent a film. I suppose you wouldn't expect James Bond to punch like Arnold Schwartzenegger, would you? Well now he does. Where is the wit? Everything is so heavy-handed. This film is so full of flaws. It First of all this is very violent a film. I suppose you wouldn't expect James Bond to punch like Arnold Schwartzenegger, would you? Well now he does. Where is the wit? Everything is so heavy-handed. This film is so full of flaws. It tries to make the JB series head somewhere else, but this goes nowhere. Would you believe they made a James Bond film without the gunbarrel sequence? Without a proper title song? Without a Moneypenny scene? The first hour or so with the endless fight scenes is totally useless and a pain for the eyes, but I guess that must be what pleases American crowds... The film only starts when it gets to the novel plot, i.e. the casino etc. The only good point I can see to this film is that it sticks fairly to the book, but then who cares since I must have been the only person in the theater having read the novel? Believe me, Bond on screen died long ago.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

jwt7000Nov 20, 2012

Loved the stunts, loved the theme song, but did not love the overall scenario of the movie itself. A long boring card game in the middle of the movie and the action scenes are mostly dealt with chasing one enemy at a time. I expect moreLoved the stunts, loved the theme song, but did not love the overall scenario of the movie itself. A long boring card game in the middle of the movie and the action scenes are mostly dealt with chasing one enemy at a time. I expect more excitement and the gadgets this time but there's nothing more than just some pointless scenes.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

HotelCentralFeb 15, 2020

If you want 144 minutes of utter nonsense then this is the film for you. Daniel Craig spends so much screen time running, fighting, shooting, driving, beating and getting beaten, throwing people down stairs, etc, etc, etc, that I'm reallyIf you want 144 minutes of utter nonsense then this is the film for you. Daniel Craig spends so much screen time running, fighting, shooting, driving, beating and getting beaten, throwing people down stairs, etc, etc, etc, that I'm really unable to say if the guy can act. I mean the main bit of acting is James Bond staring with steely eyes at his enemies and then it's back to running, fighting, shooting, and so on.

I was bored well inside of 60 minutes. I find it difficult to believe that anyone might view the plot as even remotely plausible. I only wonder why they bothered to throw in love scenes at the end. I guess that was supposed to set us up for the "big reveal", ho-hum. The scenes must have been written by twelve-year olds. They were laughable. And they left the "big reveal" lying on a breakfast plate like a soggy pancake.

And this concludes my recent marathon of Bond films. I wanted to see how all the old films held up. Casino Royale makes it plain that they were never really worth watching to begin with, for in the end they're all simply farces.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

ItsmayaOct 4, 2021

This film is for most of the time boring as hell, time does not move, the characters are not interesting, and you really do not care about the story...
Yeah, sometimes it's interesting but for most of the time it's not... I can not recommendThis film is for most of the time boring as hell, time does not move, the characters are not interesting, and you really do not care about the story...
Yeah, sometimes it's interesting but for most of the time it's not... I can not recommend this film and I do think it's a waste of time.
Maybe I think that way because I watch the film in 2021 and the film is no longer stand up today, I really don't know, all I know is that I can't recommend it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews