IMDb > Casino Royale (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Casino Royale
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Casino Royale More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 13 of 231: [Prev][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [Next]
Index 2301 reviews in total 

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

The most far-fetched Bond movie so far

5/10
Author: Laurentiu Stan from Edinburgh
17 December 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Incredibly weak plot, non faithful to James Bond series image.

5/10
Author: flatline-11 from Hungary
14 December 2006

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...

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

The New Bond Is A Washout

5/10
Author: djjorgo (djjorgo@hotmail.com) from Australia
13 December 2006

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

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Not a James Bond Movie

4/10
Author: Pike6
27 November 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

What the bleep??? Bond, where?

1/10
Author: goranconkic from Becej, Serbia
21 October 2007

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...

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Bond is dead !

4/10
Author: hferreira90 from Portugal
11 December 2006

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

A Major Bummer

4/10
Author: Devon Morris
17 November 2006

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

The first "Bond" movie that's bored me to tears...

3/10
Author: raraavis-2 from United Kingdom
8 February 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

A Bond movie for those who don't like Bond movies

2/10
Author: adjorgkilu from USA
4 July 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Save James Bond

Author: Bizandplez (Bizandplez@hotmail.com) from Covington, Washington
22 December 2006

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 13 of 231: [Prev][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history