|Page 13 of 231:||               |
|Index||2301 reviews in total|
I was tempted to give a worse rating than I actually have to this movie because is so gross and lacking substance compared to the other Bond movies. I used to look forward to the Bond movies, because I was always impressed and entertained by the progress for one movie to the next one. But all stopped here...at this King Kong(what's up with that monkey running????)meets The Terminator movie...plus a little bit of Die Hard(est) in its worst sequel. I'm saddened and I mourn Brosnan retirement from the Bond role. I'm wondering if Timothy Dalton would be still capable of playing another role. In my opinion either one of those two, Brosnan and Dalton would've done a 100 times better job than Craig. I'm not saying that it's Craig's fault. It might be the screenplay, or the director's fault but the bottom line is that the movie is not worthy of a Bond movie. So, go see it only if you have nothing better to do. I recommend sleeping.
Anyone, who states that the new type of directing and other "twists"
favored the movie to be better, is terribly wrong.
I was fed up with the non-stop nude male body scenes, there were no decorative girls, which are essential in my opinion to a James Bond movie, and the dialog was absurdly bad. It was almost like a romantic B category movie.
I went to see it because the reviews were good, and i just realized halfway the movie that it is really, REALLY bad.
There were only two action scenes, worth mentioning, the rest is history... Is it a good James Bond movie? No.
Is it contains unexpected twists? No, you know everything about halfway through...
Is it well directed? I think no.
See for yourself, i'd say stay away...
The new Bond movie was not the greatest one to be made. It came with
very boring times and Bond seemed human for once. Also i would like to
say WHAT BOND DOSN'T HAVE GADGETS, you would think even if he just came
into being a 00 he still could of gotten them, i mean Bond is just not
Bond without them. There was something very surprising in the movie as
well, he didn't get the girl, whats with that? I found the bad guy
nothing special and he's way of getting info from Bond isn't well the
kinda thing i wanted to see. But i do admit there were times in the
movie that made me laugh and that were good but i still think they
could have done better.
From your Australian Friend djjorgo
I was really disappointed with Casino Royale and it's not only because of Daniel Craig. I didn't find the British humor that was in each and every James Bond movie rather a lot of violence and most of the time useless. When you think about James Bond, you think about Sean Connery, Roger Moore ,even Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan and their British touch. Here it is just brutal action and nothing more. Yes Daniel Craig is athletic and shows lots of muscles but that's not what I expect from James Bond. In its behavior he's very impulsive and does not think before acting which puts him is perilous situations you would'not expect a real James Bond to fall into. In this movie you will not even see a Q anymore. Dear, I miss this one too. You will also see James Bond driving a Ford car and nobody is fooled anymore. Ford has paid a lot of good dollars for this minute of the movie. There's also a scene where James makes himself a shot of medicine in his carotid without a miss and uses a portable defibrillator at the same time. this is just too much. So, my advise if you liked the James Bond movies the way I liked them,you'd better not go and watch this one.
OK, I did wait almost a year to see this movie on DVD because I'm kind
of a James Bond Fan, but now I'm sorry for loosing over two hours of my
life on something like this. I don't even call it a movie, because as
first point of my dislike is that of bad acting...god was that awful. I
don't know where They picked this guy (Daniel Craig). Is he even
British? 'cause I can speak with a better Brit accent than him. Then
the plot...It's just unbelievable,amazing. Of course no one could see a
plot,when it' so stupid that it hurts and insults one's intelligence.
Just like somebody said here "It's just like Transporter or XXX" At
least in those movies you expect that,but in this movie I expected at
least some of that Brit Bondish something that the other movies had,
instead "Casino Royale" came out.
Oh and yeah...one of the best parts in this movie was Crna Gora (Montenegro) that doesn't look 1% of it self in this movie?! It looks like Czech Republic amazingly enough. But who would know and care...At least they got the sign boards right...mostly.
All in all summary of this movie is: It's just another Hollywood (American) money maker. For anyone with a bit more IQ this is an insult and I would recommend it NOT to be watched...
I was unbelievably disappointed movie,this in not a bond movie , end of
discussion. I went to see a movie , not a commercial of Ford products!
Sometimes when we want to innovate ,we burn our past.Children with guns
in Africa !!!! All Inclued hotels in Bahamas !!! Bond in Love !!!
Terrorists that we don't understand the point or objective!!! Wereis
the charm? This is a chip trilogy that they want to make , James Bond
is beauty , charm , glamor, gadgets , the traditional soundtrack,the
fashion, the bond girls,Bond does get injured .
Sometimes when we want to innovate ,we burn our past!
Nothing else to say!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So the movie begins to what I believed to be quite exciting and action
packed. The first few scenes are really spectacular! However, the
biggest problem with this movie, is that is pretty much all the action.
For about half the film, you watch Bond play poker. Whoop-dee-doo.
Eventually, there are scenes where he something occurs and he does some
sweet action moves, but it's pretty much watching a group of rich men
(and one old Chinese woman) play poker.
Like every Bond movie, this one has a car chase; however, this chase lasts about 15 seconds and it takes place in the country. Oh, how intense. Another missing part of this movie was Bond's gadgets supplied by Q. Yes I know this is meant to be the first one, so maybe he has no Q, but come on, at least put some cool gizmos. Guns and hands get old, fast.
So in conclusion, this so called "Bond" movie really strides away from the original concept with extreme action throughout the film, crazy gadgets, and Bond as a suave man-whore. The film was nonetheless interesting at parts; sort of dragged on within an hour into it with all the poker. And what you believe is the end never ceases, resulting in an overly dragged out ending having the movie take just way too much time.
Bond for the mindless set: no class, no elegance, no humor, a Bond who
looks extremely ill at ease in a dinner jacket, violence for violence's
sake, endless explosions and fights... in fact, just another
car-chases-explosions-and-guns film of the kind that Hollywood cranks
out by the dozen, even if this one wasn't made in Hollywood. I yawned
through it and left before the end.
This movie has been clearly aimed at a different market, at a public that consumes tons of popcorn and chats on mobiles (cellphones) while watching a movie. It is, you might say, a "chav" Bond. Daniel Craig would be more believable as a truck driver than as a classy character such as the real Bond we all knew and loved.
If you are a Bond fan, stay away from this garbage.
I have watched all 21 Bond movies made so far. Casino Royale is not the
worst-made of the series, just the most offensive one. The only other
time the Bond franchise attempted a complete departure from the
established Bond formula the result was the complete flop of License To
Kill, which led to a change of direction and the fantastic Goldeneye.
But unfortunately this time the experiment was a success, so I'm afraid
of what will follow. Both License To Kill and Casino Royale have been
praised as "a return to the Fleming spirit", when in truth they are
nothing more than shameless attempts to cash in on popular fads of
their time: the Bronson / Arnold / Stallone action films of the 80s in
the case of License, the Bourne / Transporter films in the case of
Casino. Daniel Craig is not a bad actor, but he is no doubt the worst
Bond impersonator so far, his lack of class and charisma is almost
astonishing. Of course his "do I look like a give a damn" line and his
fighting prowess will wow 15-year-olds, but those who remember Connery,
Moore, Dalton (in The Living Daylights), Brosnan, even that weirdo
Lazenby, may feel like crying at what has become of their beloved icon.
Of course you could ask the producers why this supposedly first mission
of 007 is set in 2006 and if that means they have dared to completely
write off 44 years and 20 films that allowed them to make this one, but
their response will probably be "Do we look like we give a damn?".
If Casino Royale didn't pretend to be a part of the Bond series, I would give it 6 out of 10, but it does, so it's a 2.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In some respects this was a James Bond movie, but it's not fun anymore. The movie is overly violent and has a tragic end that could of easily been avoided. James Bond saves the world but who is going to save James Bond from the meanies producing his movies. The James Bond they have is no Pierce Bronson and is better suited to being a bad guy I think. The chase scenes at the beginning is good but too long. Bring back the bouncy girl credits. Now we know what a double o means. Ian Fleming's favorite movie was the original Casino Royale which I much prefer to this version. This reminds me of what they did with Superman when they reinvented him in the early 90's. They killed him off and brought him back from the dead stronger than ever. Then they killed two kids in the comic book and I stopped reading it. The people producing James Bond movies better be careful that they don t lose the popular culture ties they have by putting bad endings on his movies, if it s not too late already.
|Page 13 of 231:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|