Casino Royale

7

RM.Feb 26, 2007

I've been a Bond fan since Goldfinger. I was disappointed by the confusing doublecrosses and plot twists, most of which were toward the end of the film. Who was blackmailing Vesper? Why did the Angolans want money from LeChiffre? He I've been a Bond fan since Goldfinger. I was disappointed by the confusing doublecrosses and plot twists, most of which were toward the end of the film. Who was blackmailing Vesper? Why did the Angolans want money from LeChiffre? He supposedly was paid for weapons but the film never explained the transaction. Who shot Mathis? Craig of course was good. I knew he would be. The pre-credits were so-so, the title sequence was cartoonish. The song was boring. The tone of the film was great, more serious.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MikeN.Mar 13, 2007

It's better than any recent Bond movie. But it still isn't great. It is, I suppose a "good" movie. But lets face it. James Bond is dead. And he's not coming back, unless they find another Sean Connery to play him. Daniel Craig It's better than any recent Bond movie. But it still isn't great. It is, I suppose a "good" movie. But lets face it. James Bond is dead. And he's not coming back, unless they find another Sean Connery to play him. Daniel Craig is good, but just not good enough.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

NickA.Mar 23, 2007

This was a good film but not a great one! Perhaps I'm being a bit sentimental here but after watching this I wanted to get out one of my favourite bond films, Live And Let Die and see what the true point of Bond was, loads of gadgets, This was a good film but not a great one! Perhaps I'm being a bit sentimental here but after watching this I wanted to get out one of my favourite bond films, Live And Let Die and see what the true point of Bond was, loads of gadgets, loads of explosions and a film that didnt take itself so seriously. In a way this resembles the way Batman Begins goes in re-inventing the franchise, however that works brilliantly this somehow left me feeling a bit underwhelmed. As a film its not bad and there are some great action sequences however too much time was spent in the casino scenes and this part dragged on for too long. So it was a good attempt at trying to bring Bond upto date but not quite there. Daniel Craig really wasnt the problem here even though Judi Dench stole every scene they were in together! Perhaps with time the director will manage to get the right blend of gadgets, wry humour and action sequences whilst still being gritty and dark at times.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

DWillyNov 18, 2006

Nifty dialog, great locations, nice set pieces, and a servicable lead performance from Craig, appropraitely thuggish but with the limitation that comes with an actor who is emotionally cut playing someone who is emotionally cut off. Never Nifty dialog, great locations, nice set pieces, and a servicable lead performance from Craig, appropraitely thuggish but with the limitation that comes with an actor who is emotionally cut playing someone who is emotionally cut off. Never moving (which is possible in a top flight, action film like The Bourne Identity), but always entertaining.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JBWockyNov 18, 2006

Sure, its a very good reboot but the film has two serious problems that trip up its shot at being the definitive Bond flick -for a Bond fan of course. First, Daniel Craig is good, puts in a superb effort and is wonderfully darker but is Sure, its a very good reboot but the film has two serious problems that trip up its shot at being the definitive Bond flick -for a Bond fan of course. First, Daniel Craig is good, puts in a superb effort and is wonderfully darker but is really not what the character merits. Tux him up to the hilt and he still looks and acts more KGB than MI6, more Spetsnaz than Oxbridge toff. The 'working man's Bond' is a problem, especially after Brosnan. Second, by stripping down and subverting every Bond trope - even if it be to pretty good effect too - the film melts the glue that always bonded. Bond is about as real world as Willy Wonka. The Bourne Identity the film can never be. Simply being different, with respect to an admittedly tired formula, makes a movie interesting and good, not great.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

PauletteA.Dec 6, 2006

Daniel Craig topless looked like Popeye and his pouty lips were annoying. Fast energy, interesting twists and turns in plot.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

DonW.Jan 7, 2007

I dont mind a blonde Bond, he has the right look. Not the best story to choose for his first but he didn't decide that. I see alot of potential in Daniel Craig for future Bond movies. The girls were not as attractive as previous Bond I dont mind a blonde Bond, he has the right look. Not the best story to choose for his first but he didn't decide that. I see alot of potential in Daniel Craig for future Bond movies. The girls were not as attractive as previous Bond movies and gadgets were held to a minimum. It's just what I want in a Bond movie and the villian was sub par compared to the rest of the series.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

KeithA.Mar 29, 2007

It had several very good scenes but it's not as great as the critics make it out to be. Craig did a good job, but he's much more intimidating than any previous Bond which takes away the character's subtle charm. The action It had several very good scenes but it's not as great as the critics make it out to be. Craig did a good job, but he's much more intimidating than any previous Bond which takes away the character's subtle charm. The action sequences and dialogue are top-notch but the plot isn't that interesting (not to mention a predictable twist), it was too long, and the villian goes down like a PUNK. It's the best bond since GoldenEye, but it could've been better.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JanSchollNov 17, 2006

I am not a Bond fan-and my tickets were free-but I had a pretty good time other than the snake/ferret scene. The ending was a bit odd--so I am assuming the next two films will clear up the whole thing with Ellipsis? Might buy it come dvd time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

halbNov 18, 2006

"One of the best films of the 20th century"...? Please. First of all, we're now in the 21st century, last time I checked my calendar. Secondly, it is merely a good film, one of the better in the 007 franchise, but not a great film."One of the best films of the 20th century"...? Please. First of all, we're now in the 21st century, last time I checked my calendar. Secondly, it is merely a good film, one of the better in the 007 franchise, but not a great film. Flawed by an early false climax and not-totally-unexpected plot "twist" a good 30 minutes before the true climax -- which wasn't really all that satisfying, in my opinion, just a set up for the next film. Craig is truly excellent as Bond.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

RichardSNov 22, 2006

Very good in many ways: Craig, the stunts, the action in general, the dialogue and the brilliant opening credits etc. But it is also flawed: the opening song is absolutely dreadful, even worse than Madonna's abomination. Words cannot Very good in many ways: Craig, the stunts, the action in general, the dialogue and the brilliant opening credits etc. But it is also flawed: the opening song is absolutely dreadful, even worse than Madonna's abomination. Words cannot describe how bad the song is. A few other problems: the repeated use of mobile phone calls to reveal identities becomes grating. Also, the story has too many holes and improbabilities. But overall a success - an excellent start and Craig is superb.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

AnthonyFJul 16, 2009

Casino Royale is the film the producers wanted to do for so long. I want to say "too little to late" to them because James Bond is a cold war relic. Now that they've changed him into something different may not be easy to deal with by Casino Royale is the film the producers wanted to do for so long. I want to say "too little to late" to them because James Bond is a cold war relic. Now that they've changed him into something different may not be easy to deal with by some fans. It will be hard for me to deal with but I still enjoyed the film before it last half-hour, which is a murky mess. Kudos to Craig for playing Bond so well.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

CarlM.Nov 21, 2006

Best Bond in eons. A captivating and actually somewhat believable story, and this itteration of the Bond character is actually more real. Every woman will want him. Every man will want to be him.Craig is perfect. If not just a TAD too Best Bond in eons. A captivating and actually somewhat believable story, and this itteration of the Bond character is actually more real. Every woman will want him. Every man will want to be him.Craig is perfect. If not just a TAD too beefcake. All in all well worth it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

EliaNov 25, 2006

007 magic was missing--even though the setting of this movie was as Bond's new status as a double 'OO' agent, I expected a more suave and debonair man, a 'lady killer', more beautiful women, etc. What happened to his 007 magic was missing--even though the setting of this movie was as Bond's new status as a double 'OO' agent, I expected a more suave and debonair man, a 'lady killer', more beautiful women, etc. What happened to his wry sense of humor--none here. Not even one good gadget to get him out of a jam. A lot of good action scenes, but again, not even a hint of Bond magic.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

moviegrabbagJun 13, 2011

I was actually really surprised. Daniel Craig was an amazing Bond and Eva Green to me was one of the best Bond girls. The plot was actually really good and believable. The acting was great. The only problems I have with the movie is that itsI was actually really surprised. Daniel Craig was an amazing Bond and Eva Green to me was one of the best Bond girls. The plot was actually really good and believable. The acting was great. The only problems I have with the movie is that its a prequil but the technoligy was far better then the other films and M looks older. But once you get past those details this movie was great.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

bram29Oct 16, 2011

the movie was entertaining, but the action is mostly what keeps it up. i don't really like daniel craig as James Bond. movie was good, but didn't really have the feeling of a James Bond movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

TyranianApr 11, 2019

A high quality Bond film with good action and Craig does a pretty good job.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

eTurkeyMar 23, 2012

This film, 'Casino Royale' is like a breath of cool, fresh air in the sense that it absolutely refreshes the entire James Bond franchise. Daniel Craig has exceeded all expectations and has successfully molded his own version of the famous 007This film, 'Casino Royale' is like a breath of cool, fresh air in the sense that it absolutely refreshes the entire James Bond franchise. Daniel Craig has exceeded all expectations and has successfully molded his own version of the famous 007 spy. The movie itself is dark, gritty and realistic; gone are the days of the cheeky, suave Bonds we've previously seen in the past. However if you're not a fan of poker this flick will prove to be both tedious and boring at times and the lack of a decent villain is somewhat disappointing to say the least.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Tss5078Feb 23, 2013

I've never been a fan of James Bond. Probably, because I grew up with Pierce Brosnan as 007 and he sucked. I decide to give the series another shot, not because of Bond, but rather Daniel Craig. I have been a fan of Craig's for some time,I've never been a fan of James Bond. Probably, because I grew up with Pierce Brosnan as 007 and he sucked. I decide to give the series another shot, not because of Bond, but rather Daniel Craig. I have been a fan of Craig's for some time, having seen several of the films from overseas. I knew then that he would be a huge action star and now he's 007. As for my first Bond movie, it was pretty good. Craig was fantastic and avoided much of the cliché Bond moments that most of us have come to loath. The film was entertaining, but also pretty predictable and much longer than it needed to be. I was also very unimpressed by the bad guys. I thought Bond villains were supposed to be classic, but these guys were rather forgettable. I'm not in love with the Bond character, but this film did open my eyes a little bit and I probably will check out Quantum of Solace in the near future.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

beingryanjudeAug 31, 2014

Daniel Craig is a refreshing and exhilarating take on James Bond. Casino Royale proves that James Bond will continue to be a part of our lives for years to come.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

travispipesJul 31, 2012

It has all the guns, girls, and gadgets you would expect but never feels too cliche. Daniel Craig is a perfect Bond. He has the suave that you'd expect from the character, but adds a edginess that feels like should have always been there.It has all the guns, girls, and gadgets you would expect but never feels too cliche. Daniel Craig is a perfect Bond. He has the suave that you'd expect from the character, but adds a edginess that feels like should have always been there. What he takes away though is some of the fun.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

SamblixAug 14, 2012

Casino Royale is a welcome return to the super spy James Bond. After a four year long hiatus it was great to see him in action again. More a reboot/prequel to that all came before it, this movie goes to explain how Bond became who is today.Casino Royale is a welcome return to the super spy James Bond. After a four year long hiatus it was great to see him in action again. More a reboot/prequel to that all came before it, this movie goes to explain how Bond became who is today. The gritty, darker tone of the movie is refreshing for the series, if not a bit more Bourne than Bond. I must say I had my reservations of Daniel Craig being Mr. Bond, rest assured he makes a great performance, if a little more pouty than we're used too. The absence of gadgets is a minor grumble of mine, plot can be slightly confusing at times. The movie attempts to rouse emotion from the audience by the end of the movie however, with a twist so obviously coming, the emotion just wasn't there. Great, popcorn action fun.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

f___yocouchOct 25, 2012

Daniel Craig plays his James Bond well, but that is just it, it isn't the original oo7 James Bond that the world knows and loves, I am pretty sure that this movie breaks away from the original Bond universe and creates its own timeline. TheDaniel Craig plays his James Bond well, but that is just it, it isn't the original oo7 James Bond that the world knows and loves, I am pretty sure that this movie breaks away from the original Bond universe and creates its own timeline. The removal of moneypenny and Q did make me mad, but on its own the movie was amazing, somehow it made me on the edge of my seat while watching a poker game, at least SkyFall will bring back Q. Daniel Craig is a good actor, but at times it seemed like he just froze and put on a dumb face. not showing any emotion when some should have been shown. If this is your first oo7 movie and you loved it, watch Quantum of Solace next, not the previous Bond films because they are very different from the newer ones.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

eva3si0nApr 27, 2020

The first film in the restart of the series about Agent 007 turned out not to be bad, but definitely not one of the best in the series. The action is too stretched yes and the plot is rolling slowly. The double ending certainly does not lookThe first film in the restart of the series about Agent 007 turned out not to be bad, but definitely not one of the best in the series. The action is too stretched yes and the plot is rolling slowly. The double ending certainly does not look bad, though here the film showed a little creativity. Cast really not bad, yes Mads Mikkelsen… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

amheretojudgeMay 13, 2019

Campbell and Craig had an easy job to do, just not to make the same mistakes, and scoffing off the limitations, it is a clear qualifier.

Casino Royale Campbell has evolved. A lot. And keeping toe to toe with the ever-changing show business,Campbell and Craig had an easy job to do, just not to make the same mistakes, and scoffing off the limitations, it is a clear qualifier.

Casino Royale

Campbell has evolved. A lot. And keeping toe to toe with the ever-changing show business, he has quickly managed to grasp the essence of the crisp that this generation craves for. But mind you, it still doesn't make Martin Campbell, the director, the finest of all. In fact, looking at the 1-0-1 criteria of filmmaking, he may be able to JUST qualify as one. Let's take the Airport chase sequence, for instance. First of all it's one smooth ride, with all the elements of the scene mapped out neatly on the screen where its fast and gritty choreography makes the best of the run. Now as far as this was concerned, it is actually Campbell informing us with news, dry news.

What it fails to capture majorly, is the momentum of all the action. It's not that we don't get it, we are just asked to reach out for it, it isn't served us up front on the table. If these are its cons, then pros have to be the performances and the cast. But quickly before we sink into Daniel Craig's thunderous blue eyes, another thing Campbell places elegantly in the film, is how the time has passed in any circumstances, the selected highlights in both the narration and execution are subtle and exhilarating.

So now, Craig.. should we just gaze at him or appreciate his exceptionally powerful scene with Mads Mikkelsen as he tortures him brutally. The humor that has been questioned many a times is twisted and turned so beautifully in here that even a worthy one-liner doesn't make us laugh but leaves a jarring dramatic impression on us. Eva Green with her love track doesn't have that amount of electricity in her romance as that poker table does which ironically is negatively motivated, something that the theme of Casino Royale shares.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Onlyclassicvg1Sep 7, 2022

) This is the best bond film of the last 20 years; 2) Daniel Craig is the best bond since Connery; 3) The pacing is absolutely perfect. 120 mins is just about right. Those reviewers complaining that 120 mins is too long either have ADD or I) This is the best bond film of the last 20 years; 2) Daniel Craig is the best bond since Connery; 3) The pacing is absolutely perfect. 120 mins is just about right. Those reviewers complaining that 120 mins is too long either have ADD or I suspect are very young/immature and do not have… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

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

3

ZZZZZboringMay 8, 2007

Worst Bond ever!!! Ok this is before Sean Connery and everything, how come he's using cellular phones and driving 2006 Aston martins? The movie is horrible. Craig's input is spending six months in the gym the dialogue is nothing. Worst Bond ever!!! Ok this is before Sean Connery and everything, how come he's using cellular phones and driving 2006 Aston martins? The movie is horrible. Craig's input is spending six months in the gym the dialogue is nothing. The humor is completely gone I mean Bond used to be fun and unrealistic that was the whole point of it. It is one long commercial for Sony and Aston martin. I mean they must have showed off the complete line of Sony Ericsson cellphones and all the wonderful things they have in them. And what kind of pussyass Bond has a defibrillator in his car incredible. Come on Bond doesn't play poker he plays Baccarat every f.cking person in the universe knows that. It's just so sold out Sony controlling Ok we need someone who has spent his life in the gym next to out cellphones. Bond doesn't concern himself with tells. This is the worst movie ever. Anyone would have made a better Bond. Bond is not boring. Homer Simpson would have made a better bond. George bush would have made a better Bond. Any one with intelligence would have made a better Bond. Even Madonna. And I'm guessing the average of people in here is 7.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

ChristopherS.Mar 14, 2007

In an effort to reinvent the Bond franchise the filmmakers succeeded only in burying it. The best part of this movie ends at the 11 minute mark the ensuing 2+ hours are completely and utterly forgettable. Daniel Craig, an otherwise fine In an effort to reinvent the Bond franchise the filmmakers succeeded only in burying it. The best part of this movie ends at the 11 minute mark the ensuing 2+ hours are completely and utterly forgettable. Daniel Craig, an otherwise fine actor, is comically miscast. His pug face and squat muscular body are totally inappropriate for the role. In fact, apart from Caterina Murino, Casino Royale will be remembered as the Bond film featuring the most unattractive cast ever assembled. My advice; pickup Mission Impossible 3 and leave this waste of time on the shelf.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

baym.Nov 21, 2006

This is not bond the icon.... this is a very supid bond movie... i don't care about the good ratings of the movie critics... we the public viewer make it a big hits... make it an invincible bond just like the old days... daniel? is not This is not bond the icon.... this is a very supid bond movie... i don't care about the good ratings of the movie critics... we the public viewer make it a big hits... make it an invincible bond just like the old days... daniel? is not invincible in looks, style, and humor as well... that is how an icon is created... by the way he is bond... make him a global icon... u better check out the box office world wide... it is not the same james bond movie that still showing in cinema in almost a month.. but one week maybe... and to the producer... does it concern you?… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

JeffF.Nov 20, 2006

The new Bond is a humorless stiff. One long pointless chase is followed by a long pointless fistfight followed by a long pointless card game followed by a long pointless shootout. We know who is going to win the poker tournament just get on The new Bond is a humorless stiff. One long pointless chase is followed by a long pointless fistfight followed by a long pointless card game followed by a long pointless shootout. We know who is going to win the poker tournament just get on with it. The movie just goes on and on and on. Other than Die Another Day this is the worst Bond ever. The thrill is gone.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful

3

CiaranC.Nov 29, 2006

I did enjoy the first 5 minutes and the inital chase but it deteriated quickly. The Casino scenes were laughable and but the time it reached the climax I'd reached my limit also. How is this considered a good movie by critics I'll I did enjoy the first 5 minutes and the inital chase but it deteriated quickly. The Casino scenes were laughable and but the time it reached the climax I'd reached my limit also. How is this considered a good movie by critics I'll never know. Daniel Craig was dreadful, this movie should never have been made as the story of Casino Royale is substandard.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

SparklingApr 2, 2007

Run away. I read a review saying this was a post Bourne Supremacy Bond fim- a film I liked. This film was pants. I had high hopes- such high hopes. Danny-boy is alright, don't get me wrong. Have you not see it yet? You decide.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

BrianP.Nov 18, 2006

This is the worst Bond ever. There was no class to this new Bond, No humor, dark, dark, dark!! Too much violence just for violence sake. I was really disappointed. And I don't want to see any gross torture scenes in the movies any more. This is the worst Bond ever. There was no class to this new Bond, No humor, dark, dark, dark!! Too much violence just for violence sake. I was really disappointed. And I don't want to see any gross torture scenes in the movies any more. Enough said.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

timmNov 21, 2006

Ok. so... this movie kinda sux. new and different doesn't mean better when the plot sux and there is no character development whatsoever. i challenge anyone to tell me who the bad guys actually were. and the guy with one sunglass! uhoh! Ok. so... this movie kinda sux. new and different doesn't mean better when the plot sux and there is no character development whatsoever. i challenge anyone to tell me who the bad guys actually were. and the guy with one sunglass! uhoh! he looks scary! and he really wants that briefcase! retarded. i was soooo disappointed, especially with all those good reviews, saying this reinvents Bond. i like the feel of the movie, the aura, bond's character, and nothing else. and what was with that ending? i suppose if there's no plot there can't really be an ending, huh. … Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

DsdsfTeteteMar 26, 2007

Bond is the bad guy in this movie. He's just an as.hole picking on this guy in a poker game. Plot made no sense. Action was few and far in between. And the story made no sense.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

JOES.Aug 31, 2007

Casino Royale was meant to be a more down to earth bond film. Too bad it sucked. If the directors really wanted to make a more realistic bond, they should have made a more From Russia with Love type realistic. A bond movie shouldn't be Casino Royale was meant to be a more down to earth bond film. Too bad it sucked. If the directors really wanted to make a more realistic bond, they should have made a more From Russia with Love type realistic. A bond movie shouldn't be totally fake and stupid, (cough Die Another Day cough!) but it shouldn't be so realistic that bond goes through cardiac arrest. Also, Craig just plain sucks! If they wanted a more "realistic" bond, anybody would have been better! (Clive Owen anybody?) The movie is way to long. It is the first time I was actually bored during a bond film. Mads Mikkelsen is simply unimposing and anti-climatic. I think that my 8-year-old-brother could have beat the crap out of him. Also, the casino scene is SOOOOOOO LOOOONG! Bond plays Baccarat, not poker, but that's not important. Daniel Craig mumbles for the whole movie. Also, if they wanted a more plausible film, why then, put in some jamacan guy who has been bitten by a radioactive spider! I know this review is very inconsistent, but the film is so bad that i don't know where to start! Oh, yeah, the only good part was when Bond met Mr. White. Hopefully the next one will be better.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

KimomarudotcomDec 29, 2012

I did not like this movie at all. The action scenes are waaaaaaaaaaaay too long, so long that you'll forget how and why they're even happening. Bond jumps all over the place, so much so that he reminds me more of Super Mario than anythingI did not like this movie at all. The action scenes are waaaaaaaaaaaay too long, so long that you'll forget how and why they're even happening. Bond jumps all over the place, so much so that he reminds me more of Super Mario than anything else. The plot is difficult to appreciate, there's just nothing the viewer is able to relate to in this movie. The only bright spot is Judy Dench, who is wonderful in any role she plays. Maybe this movie is worth watching just for her scenes. Daniel Craig is good, too, but the movie doesn't take advantage of his strong screen presence. Hopefully Skyfall will be better?… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

3

MeritCobaDec 9, 2019

I gave this movie a try, but I couldn't get past the murders of innocent bystanders. There is this scene I can't forget where a blue collar worker is pushed of a building under construction to fall to his death. His gas welder plummets to theI gave this movie a try, but I couldn't get past the murders of innocent bystanders. There is this scene I can't forget where a blue collar worker is pushed of a building under construction to fall to his death. His gas welder plummets to the ground and explodes to kill of another group of workers. Add this to two scene were Bond escapes with his life because a windscreen of a bulldozer stops bullets and his opponent ran out of bullets when he has Bond cornered and he comes over as a murderous skill-less thug who got lucky. I prefer another kind of bond.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

DanielA.Dec 15, 2007

This movie is a load of crap. Most bond films weren't killing everyone so violently. He is made out to be a vicious killer. Nothing against violence in movies, But James Bond When you compare the older classic Bond movies This guy This movie is a load of crap. Most bond films weren't killing everyone so violently. He is made out to be a vicious killer. Nothing against violence in movies, But James Bond When you compare the older classic Bond movies This guy doesn't have the Carisma of Either a Roger Moore or a Sean Connery. I'm truly disappointed. I want my money back. Pierce Brosnan did a better job even. Maybe it was the story But I didn't buy in to his character. Truly not my bag baby.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

GavinB.Apr 1, 2007

Poor, very poor. Not only does this movie fail to live up to anything that has come from the excellent mind that belongs to Ian Fleming, but has destroyed the great legacy of that which is the bond series. Poor acting, poor plot, poor Bond. Poor, very poor. Not only does this movie fail to live up to anything that has come from the excellent mind that belongs to Ian Fleming, but has destroyed the great legacy of that which is the bond series. Poor acting, poor plot, poor Bond. Mr Fleming, we are sorry.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

NilsLOct 14, 2008

The perfect example of bad decisions in film-making. All the charm that made Bond Bond in the previous movies is gone, in a weak attempt to revive the franchise. A less-than perfect stab at realism, coupled with what made the old movies so The perfect example of bad decisions in film-making. All the charm that made Bond Bond in the previous movies is gone, in a weak attempt to revive the franchise. A less-than perfect stab at realism, coupled with what made the old movies so tacky yet endearing: the awful, unintelligent plot twists, unbelievable (and in this case completely unmemorable) villains, and laughable pseudo-psychology all amounts to a movie only the most undemanding will appreciate. That said, the opening sequence was entertaining.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

jojocaneteNov 16, 2006

its a poor mans james bond. the story doesn't jell together. after seeing all the bond movie. daniel craig is sour to the eyes, very hard to look at. please replace him immidiately. save the franchise before it go bankcrap. there areits a poor mans james bond. the story doesn't jell together. after seeing all the bond movie. daniel craig is sour to the eyes, very hard to look at. please replace him immidiately. save the franchise before it go bankcrap. there are lots of other qualified actors like clive owen. hugh hagman, russel crow, even the old sean connery with a tupay can do the job better… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

ZackShannonOct 21, 2008

how the hell does this movie have universal acclaim? this killed bond for me. horrid story line and lets talk about that for a second. how the hell is it about when bonb first started and it takes place in fkin 2006? so i guess all the otherhow the hell does this movie have universal acclaim? this killed bond for me. horrid story line and lets talk about that for a second. how the hell is it about when bonb first started and it takes place in fkin 2006? so i guess all the other bond filmsd ont count? also he is the worst bonb i have seen yet..… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

KerryNov 26, 2006

I must admit, I went into this with quite a strong prejudice against Daniel Craig, but sadly he was not the main problem with this movie. Don't get me wrong, his lack of timing, delivery and style were awful and with an actor more I must admit, I went into this with quite a strong prejudice against Daniel Craig, but sadly he was not the main problem with this movie. Don't get me wrong, his lack of timing, delivery and style were awful and with an actor more suited to play Bond, perhaps the film could have scored a five. The violence is too graphic. Bond is a fantasy, to bring reality in to the portrayal of the story is ridiculous. It was too long and then when it finally did end there was no resolution to the plot. Equally annoying was the blatant product placements for sony, google, Body Worlds (which btw is even dumber than this film) and about 5 000 other products. Then there was the whole set up to show us 'why Bond can't commit to a woman'. Actually the entire premise of seeing what made Bond the way he is was handled in such a heavy-handed way that you could almost see Freud and Jung standing at the corners of the screen with pointers to ensure that it wasn't too subtle. The line about Bond not caring if the martini was shaken or stirred made me want to slap the writers. Whoever was responsible for the script was given too much freedom and not enough editing. Moneypenny wasn't even mentionned! You could practically see Judi Dench cringing through her scenes. Craig made the best of a script where Bond morphed into the Terminator, relying solely on brawn and ignoring his brain. And to be blunt, I could have done without all the scenes of him in a speedo (or less). I get it, the man is in good shape. That's not the point of a Bond film. Lastly, to add insult to injury, THERE WERE NO GADGETS! This was not a Bond movie. In fact, based on this dreck, I will see another Bond film even if Daniel Craig is in it, because there is no way it could be worse than this one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

HappyKillmoreDec 7, 2006

Pathetic. No charm, no class, no hot Bond girl, weak villain, non-stop beatings, awful fight scenes, sadistic beating, no Q, no wit, no jokes, no MoneyPenny, use of cell phones, product placement. Simply awful.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

RobertS.Jun 17, 2007

Finally George Lazenby has been stripped of his title as the worst bond. Daniel Craig offers a new brand, which betrays the classic mold and conventions of the genre. Bond is an idealised hero not a human being. This attempts to give him a Finally George Lazenby has been stripped of his title as the worst bond. Daniel Craig offers a new brand, which betrays the classic mold and conventions of the genre. Bond is an idealised hero not a human being. This attempts to give him a human side just makes his false and stale. And the relationship between him and the leading lady attempts to be meaningful but is pretentious and banal. The increasingly elaborate gadgets of bond are detracting from the excitement, and the action sequences which have always been over the to top are now becoming so bizarre that can not truly enjoy them anymore. As another review said nearly or the classic trademarks have been abandoned from the walter ppk to the classic aston martin and poker is not sophisticated enough for bond. And the humour lacks the wit and well timed placement of its predecessors. Indeed drastic measures are needed to salvage the bond formula. A start would be firing Craig and maybe considering making a period film so you could justify in the audiences mind returning to the glorious roots.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

MDMar 27, 2009

As an action movie, I would give it a 4 or 5, taking multiple points off for unconvincing and unlikable actors, but as a Bond movie I give it a very sad, dissapointed zero. DC is a fine actor, but never looks, acts, or sounds like James Bond As an action movie, I would give it a 4 or 5, taking multiple points off for unconvincing and unlikable actors, but as a Bond movie I give it a very sad, dissapointed zero. DC is a fine actor, but never looks, acts, or sounds like James Bond should. After the first third of the movie, he is clearly a mean sociopath with no charm and no interest in using his brain. I endured the rest of the movie, but was pretty much repulsed by the movie by then. I guess I'll watch the new Q of S movie, but only because I've been a Bond fan since the 70s. Very sad...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

MicahZ.Nov 23, 2006

Daniel Craig desperately tries to be Bond in this new action adventure film, donning the super-spy's tuxedo and attemting to stand in the wake of his predecessors, but his lack of sophistication downplay's his believability as the Daniel Craig desperately tries to be Bond in this new action adventure film, donning the super-spy's tuxedo and attemting to stand in the wake of his predecessors, but his lack of sophistication downplay's his believability as the Legend and brings him a far cry from Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. From the rash, thug-like tactics his character is originally supposed to have to his taste for only married-women, the sudden switch of his womanizing to a true-blue loyal lover is some-what puzzling, and his lack of a debonaire and gracious charm leaves the film feeling gaunt and missleading. There will never be another Bond like Pierce Brosnan, where, even in the last film "Die Another Day" he flawlessly executed the role: even when strolling into the lobby of a 5-star hotel with a ragged beard, long hair and medic-patient attire. There is no doubt in any Bond fan's mind . . . that is James Bond. Daniel Craig doesn't have the looks or the attitude to pull it off, thus no matter how hard he tries, Daniel Craig will never be James Bond. I give this movie a 2 out of 10.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

CalebM.Dec 19, 2007

For a movie, its all right, but for a bond movie i thought it was terrible. About 3/4 of this movie is him sitting at a table playing poker. Where are the Gadgets? why did he wreck his car after 10 seconds of driving? I can hardly consider For a movie, its all right, but for a bond movie i thought it was terrible. About 3/4 of this movie is him sitting at a table playing poker. Where are the Gadgets? why did he wreck his car after 10 seconds of driving? I can hardly consider this movie a bond movie, it was just another action movie. Plus Daniel Craig isn't bond-like at all. He has no class, hes just all about wrecking things. He isn't even British either.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DaveApr 5, 2009

Stupid. Boring. Sadistic. Implausible. Charmless. Illogical. Cheesy. Lame. Impossible, etc etc Personally i think we should nuke the earth, maybe a better species than humans will evolve, and movies like this never get past the moronic script stage.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

SylviaR.Mar 19, 2007

Worst Bond I've ever seen. There is no slight humor of the other Bonds, no special effects, a lot of violence. It's just a very hard, everyday cops and robbers movie. No Bond theme, no Bond-gets-the-girl ending. It was VERY Worst Bond I've ever seen. There is no slight humor of the other Bonds, no special effects, a lot of violence. It's just a very hard, everyday cops and robbers movie. No Bond theme, no Bond-gets-the-girl ending. It was VERY disappointing as a Bond movie. Have been loyal Bond watchers of ALL the movies but don't know if we'll watch another one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

lousyJun 6, 2007

Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish,Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish,… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

BrentRJul 13, 2007

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

TomLJun 27, 2008

Terrible film, it detracts from what made all of the other James bond films great, gadgets and cars feature far more minorly than in the other films, gunplay seems less dramatic except for the opening scene which as far as I'm concerned Terrible film, it detracts from what made all of the other James bond films great, gadgets and cars feature far more minorly than in the other films, gunplay seems less dramatic except for the opening scene which as far as I'm concerned was the only part of the dreary fil worth watching, and most seriously of all, Daniel Craig just does not act like a true Bond actor should.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

PatrickW.Nov 19, 2006

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. The movie's too long, boring, has no "enemy," and Craig will never be Brosnan or Connery...Ugh.. Just got the chills thinking about this "movie."

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

ToddM.Nov 29, 2006

There are two moments of hope for this new "Bond", the opening scene stolen by the gravity defying black actor, and the coloring of the opening scene of the car chase in which disappointment is deepened by the wreck of a beauty by the There are two moments of hope for this new "Bond", the opening scene stolen by the gravity defying black actor, and the coloring of the opening scene of the car chase in which disappointment is deepened by the wreck of a beauty by the avoidance of the other "wanna" be. With innane dialog, horrific acting (Dench exempt), no Q or Money Penny and complete lack of English suave, this is the worst bond ever! OMG, they have destroyed the bond cache in one stroke. Sad!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

JensS.Dec 2, 2006

This is probably the worst Bond movie ever. Hopefully Craig will be a one time appearance. Each Bond actor over the decade had it's own style. We had the gentleman style Sean Connery (probably the best Bond ever), the charming Roger This is probably the worst Bond movie ever. Hopefully Craig will be a one time appearance. Each Bond actor over the decade had it's own style. We had the gentleman style Sean Connery (probably the best Bond ever), the charming Roger Moore and many more. Some with more style, others with less. What has Craig to offer? His style is violence no matter what. Very sad. Bond movies used to be so much. Tension, car chases, action, humorous dialog and a lot more. What do we have now? Sad car chases in cars nobody wants to see. Bond in a Ford? Please, I don't even want a Ford from a car rental place if I can avoid it... The parking lot in front of the hotel was another funny scene. Cheap American cars where ever you look. Please, we are supposed to be in Europe! Rich people in Europe don't even think about American cars in their nightmares... What was the producer thinking? I mean think about it. Bond is meeting with people to play in a multi-million dollar poker game and nobody had any money left to get a nice car!? What a joke! The dialog was also pretty sad. I mean where did the funny lines go? Where were the gadgets? Where was Q? I am suspicious he didn't want to give any gadgets to Craig to avoid him returning for another "Bond on Crack" movie... I had high expectations and I was disappointed all the way. My good advise to people: If you haven't been unfortunate enough to have already seen it, skip it. Trust me. You want to keep Bond in a better memory than this movie...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

LarryM.Dec 9, 2007

By far the worst Bond ever. EVER.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

SimonM.Mar 26, 2007

Worst Bond ever. No charm, no humor and what Bond would ever leave a hot woman in a hotel room alone ! No wit, no "Q", no cool gadgets, no panache. What we have is Robbocopp who moves like Star Trek and speaks 30 words in the first 30 Worst Bond ever. No charm, no humor and what Bond would ever leave a hot woman in a hotel room alone ! No wit, no "Q", no cool gadgets, no panache. What we have is Robbocopp who moves like Star Trek and speaks 30 words in the first 30 minutes. They stuck a Ford Taurus (for 14$million) - what Bond would drive a Ford ?! I think this movies was made for teenage girls to see Daniel Craig (whose face looks like he's Russian and run over by a truck) getting out of the water. Lousy in all respects. A dumb action movie no imagination.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

JimLJul 21, 2007

This was easily the most disappointing Bond film ever. Daniel Craig is just not believable as James Bond, he was totally miscast in the role. The story fell apart in several places and was never able to fully recover. I can't believe This was easily the most disappointing Bond film ever. Daniel Craig is just not believable as James Bond, he was totally miscast in the role. The story fell apart in several places and was never able to fully recover. I can't believe that I wasted my money on the DVD. Had I seen it at a budget theater, which I almost did, I would have never bought the DVD. I guess I'll be selling it on ebay for a fraction of what I had to pay for it?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

Ryo91Apr 17, 2020

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/10 * Schwacher Film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

JCampbellOct 17, 2007

The positive reviews of this picture reflects how shallow and frankly stupid people in general are creatively. First, Craig is all wrong for Bond. Since a lot of people are nothing but criminals, no wonder he appeals to them. And he's a The positive reviews of this picture reflects how shallow and frankly stupid people in general are creatively. First, Craig is all wrong for Bond. Since a lot of people are nothing but criminals, no wonder he appeals to them. And he's a poor actor, mumbling his lines. Violent movie from start to finish. The original story by the way has little resemblance to this mess. Should be titled "JAMES BOMB" Casino Royale is a Royale FLOP! Bond is supposed to be a gentleman GQ type. Suave yet physical. Roger Moore was perfect. Good-bye Cubby, too bad your kid drove Bond into the ground in just one movie. If you want to change everything-MAKE ANOTHER FILM! Sasino Royale was not the box-office success it hoped for, and the above reasons are why. Next time, hire the right actor for Bond, and stck with the story that has worked! Oh, the torture scenes-just great to watch, huh! Violent, sleazy movie with Bond an anti-hero criminal. Hmmm, how hip.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

RDNov 10, 2008

Terrible. I felt as if I was channel surfing, first a dark and cold blooded assasination, then an action packed areobatic scene, quick onto explosions, oil tankers and aeroplanes no wait switch to a dramatic aka boring casino scene. Time for Terrible. I felt as if I was channel surfing, first a dark and cold blooded assasination, then an action packed areobatic scene, quick onto explosions, oil tankers and aeroplanes no wait switch to a dramatic aka boring casino scene. Time for a sadistic and disturbing torture scene and finally the death of the villian, was he the villain? Who shot him? It wasn't Bond. Oh well but wait there's more an abrupt and unexplainable change to a story of romance and betrayl. Culminating in the death of the bond girl. The plot seemed thrown together from several different ideas none of which came together. Visually unappealing, lacking anything cinematic in the form of special effects. What little I noticed of the musical score grated on the ears. As for the main character Bond was not reinvented or grittier he was just less. Less charming, less intelligent, less talkative. In fact everyone else did the talking for him, they all talked at him while he responded with bored stares. When Daniel Craig did talk as many others have mentioned he mumbled, making a discontinuous plot even more disjointed. Definately yet another example of current movie makers ruining a long standing franchise, ie. Star Trek, Star Wars, Indianna Jones, etc etc.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

AndrewPJul 5, 2009

A James Bond film is a classy spy movie with a lot of action and story, but not too much of either to make it unbalanced. Casino Royale is a poker movie. Think about it. It starts with some talking, then there's a (very cool) action A James Bond film is a classy spy movie with a lot of action and story, but not too much of either to make it unbalanced. Casino Royale is a poker movie. Think about it. It starts with some talking, then there's a (very cool) action scene, then...poker. And more poker. And even more poker. Then there's that scene when bond gets poisoned and nearly dies, and then more poker. The over involved plot doesn't have to do with bond taking out the bad guy as normal, instead he has to make him bankrupt in a, no joke here, game of high stakes poker. I think what really does it for me is seeing bond striped naked, tied to a chair, and whipped repeatedly in the area a man does not want to be whipped in. And he doesn't use his whits or cunning to escape, but instead he has to be rescued. Its just insulting. Also, no Q means no cool gadgets. Bond, the franchise that first had the idea of equipping spys with ultra high tech gadgets, suddenly has no gadgets. Personally, when i think bond, two of the first things that come to mind are the laser watch and the Aston with missiles under the head lights and now both of these icons are gone. Its just sad. This movie left me with a hollow, empty feeling that made me go back and watch one of the twenty superior bond films. No charm. No heart. No soul. 0 out of 10.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful

Casino Royale

User Reviews