IMDb > Casino Royale (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Casino Royale
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
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 2 of 231:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 2302 reviews in total 

123 out of 217 people found the following review useful:

what was that about?

Author: gupor from Australia
19 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am not the biggest James Bond fan, but I have quite enjoyed the franchise. Until now. There are so many things in this film that do not make sense that I don't know where to begin.

First of all I am convinced that Daniel Craig had a hangover one day (one of many judging by his face) and was offered a role in the movie called Casino Royale about which he most certainly thought that it is a sequel to his well made Layer Cake, for which he would be perfect. A successful cocaine dealer working his way to be England's Mafia elite will suit him much better than the British suave top spy. The phrase: "The men want to be him and the women want to be with him" does not match the criteria. I could not help but laugh seeing him emerging from the water with his egg shaped head, the sticking out trans illuminating ears and the straw organized hair. I definitely did not want to be him. Only thing to redirect the concentration of a movie goer to something else was to put him in the gym for six months prior to the shooting of the movie.

Second of all I went to see this movie with a bit of objectivity, listening to critics saying that it is a very well made action movie. I probably went to see the wrong film. The only exiting action sequence is the free-running chase through the streets in Uganda. It involved the free running champion Sebastien Foucan where Craig's stunt was trying his best not to ruin the scene. Otherwise there are no new ideas no new camera angles and most of the scenes have been in the other movies before. The petrol tank truck chase on the airport runway is like a bad copy from the Raiders of the Lost ark. Harrison did a much better job and it was original.

The sequence where Bond is mistaken for a parking attendant is the only ray of bright witty humor Bond is supposed to have and is missing and again it was used in the movies so many times before. (The latest I remember by Vin Diesel in XXX) The whole scene was badly executed and with no follow up logic. Why would security guys run towards the car to find out what has happened when there are security cameras in the security room which was left open for Bond to use the equipment??? Don't even let me start on the car chase. Sorry, what car chase? Bond goes around a couple of curves and unintentionally (when was the last time Bond unintentionally?) wrecks the car. Yes he is a great actor, just watch his facial expression before the stunt man breaks the world record in "car flipping". Unforgettable.

Editing of the poker games in the casino is just amateurish. Cutting the fight scene in half to add a dialog from different surroundings just for the viewer to find out that "Mr. Bond has changed his shirt" is called home made editing.

Making the movie about the beginnings of James Bond earning his "00" status? You start with a black and white scene which really gives you an impression about the times before it all started. Good. You pick a 38 year old actor who looks "used". Bad. You give him no gadgets. Good. Except latest satellite navigation telephones and a high tech heart defibrillator which is a standard accessory of his latest model Aston Martin (by the way Mrs. Broccoli did you really think that invisible car previously was unrealistic?). Bad. Now you have a top spy so you give him an anti terrorist mission. Good. His task is to recover a mere 150 million. Bad. Can someone add this up for me? In conclusion this film is an average movie without any pace or plot, with no new action no leading actor or actress in that matter, no plot and no meaning at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

72 out of 118 people found the following review useful:

"Casino Royale": An Obituary for The James Bond Film Franchise

Author: star-blazer from United States of America
11 July 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ever notice that the 007 films produced after "Goldeneye" seem to get worse and worse in significant critical, creative respects like screenplay quality, casting decisions, etc.? With "Casino Royale," the franchise hits rock bottom. "Casino Royale" is, objectively, the worst James Bond film in the history of the 007 film franchise. Why?

1) Story: Based, more or less, on Ian Fleming's original novel, this unskillful adaptation/update is communicated with a disdain for clarity. The audience is fed too little information, too late (or not at all)—about both character motivations as well as the stakes involved in various action sequences—to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what's going on.

2) Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal

• Daniel Craig (Bond). Craig's characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. At one point in the script, Craig's Bond responds to a question with "Do I look like I give a damn?" The answer in "Casino Royale" is overwhelmingly NO. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper "I have no idea what an honest job is." Is this a credible (or creditable) moral statement to hear from a top-level government secret agent? Craig's monotonously stoic performance is by no means compensated for by his (atrocious) line readings: he articulates rarely, mumbles often. As a result of Craig's hollow Bond interpretation, what should have been the film's ultimate impact moment—007's "Bond, James Bond" confrontation with villainous Mr. White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer.

• Eva Green ("Bond Girl," Vesper Lynd). Green's Vesper characterization comes across unwittingly as awkward, unsophisticated. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at "grown-up." What's missing is the mature presence/feminine poise that typifies the best Bond Girl actresses (e.g. Ursula Andress, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Barbara Bach, Maud Adams, Izabella Scorupco, et al). A self-confessed "complicated woman," Green's Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end, and her romance with Craig's Bond is ineptly developed and unconvincingly consummated.

• Judi Dench. Her "M" is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench.

• Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre). In Ian Fleming's novel, Le Chiffre is skillfully characterized as an odd, sinister presence. On screen, Mikkelsen's version of Le Chiffre is unimpressive—an effete villain with a blood-weepy eye, but without the twisted charisma that typifies the best Bond screen adversaries (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Mr. Big, Max Zorin, Janus, et al).

3) Script/dialogue. Both in content and tone, the screenplay—like the novel—overwhelmingly projects malevolence: the power of evil; the stress on the tragic and traumatic; all events taking place in a world where no one can or ought to be trusted. And notice how the script flagrantly undercuts James Bond, the ultimate fictional egoist, with the inclusion of damning "anti-ego" lines thrown at him by M and Vesper. The dialogue is cynical, tasteless, and witless.

4) Original Music: Chris Cornell's unmemorable opening-credits theme song—"You Know My Name"—lacks color, drama, and excitement. David Arnold's unremarkable score sounds melodramatic and overly derivative, like a cheap John Barry knock off.

5) Producer infamy/creative poverty: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film's producers, lacking the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond's personal timeline on screen, reveal their creative bankruptcy by bringing 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career, presenting him in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond's cinematically-cultivated charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgracefully vulnerable "hero." The producers deliberately emphasize Bond's vulnerability by subjecting him, incredibly, to cardiac arrest(!) as well as a horrific trial of torture (this latter was a rotten, graphic part of Fleming's original novel). Putting obstacles in a purposeful screen hero's path makes for good drama; but these shocking "Casino-Royale" examples are an extremely sick way to challenge a hero and are certainly artistically unworthy of depiction on screen.

Considering all these points, it is clear that "Casino Royale" is neither value-driven art nor fan-pleasing entertainment. The proof is in the picture.

"Casino Royale" is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. But consider:

1. This fact merely indicates the degree of public curiosity about or interest in James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise's longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (earned by much better films and performances in the series and betrayed dramatically by "Casino Royale").

2. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment.

3. High box-office numbers neither reflect nor establish this film's merit.

Was the above review useful to you?

118 out of 212 people found the following review useful:

Don't believe the hype. The worst Bond film of all time!

Author: Christopher Smith
17 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was going to wait until a second viewing of CASINO ROYALE before writing a comment for it since my opinion on a film occasionally does change the second time around, but I am absolutely stunned at the positive rating of the picture so I feel I must get my two cents out while my grips are fresh in my mind. Since there are so many of them, the following will read more as a complaint this than a coherent review, which is appropriate since coherency is definitely not something that CASINO ROYAL has, surprising given the ridiculous two and a half hour running time. Poorly adapted by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and (groan) Paul Haggis, is the perfect example of one too many cooks in the kitchen. There are two screenplays fighting for screen time here, and the two mesh horribly. The action aspect, which I am guessing is Purvis and Wade's screenplay, is fine. The ideas behind the action scenes are incredible. The execution-not so much. Then there's the so-called character development and horrid romantic sub-plot that feel like they were tacked right after shooting began. No doubt that was the work of Haggis' trite, pain-inducing screenplay, overwrought with some of the corniest dialogue of all time delivered by the seemingly medicated Daniel Craig as James Bond. Neither charming nor slick, Craig plays Bond as if he doesn't care. There is no coolness factor to Bond here, especially when the film turns into THE NOTEBOOK in the last act. Yes, this is not the Bond we all know and love. This is a sensitive, weak, and all around boring Bond. The exact type that should not be in an action movie. To make matters worse, there is no chemistry between Craig and leading lady Eva Green. In fact, their romance seems downright creepy. Green was 25-years-old when 'ROYALE' was shot, Craig was 38 and looking over 40. I could buy them as father and daughter, but as a supposed couple, it was just a major turn off.

Perhaps the biggest cinematic crime CASINO ROYALE makes is throwing the continuity of the series out the window. Granted the Bond series has never been about continuity, but what's done in 'ROYALE' is a giant slap in the face to anyone who has been following the franchise for even the past few installments. A supposed prequel to the series, the story takes place in 2006. With a budget of over $150 million, the filmmakers couldn't have set in another decade? It's just one of the many examples in CASINO ROYALE that shows film-making at its laziest. Don't believe the hype. This is the worst Bond picture of all time. I never thought I would say this, but Bond is dead. Worst of the year. 0/10

Was the above review useful to you?

138 out of 252 people found the following review useful:

Not your father's James Bond

Author: villard from United States
23 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK, this is the 21st century. So, maybe it's time for even the Bond genre to get a tune-up for new generation audiences. At least that's what the producers thought.

But the New Bond is as disappointing as New Coke. Nothing beats the original.

For starters, the producers seemed to make sure to keep everything out of the screenplay for "Casino Royale" that made the Bond series unique, exciting, engaging and fun.

The so-called "Bond formula" balanced sadism with sensuality, and ironic humor. Sadly missing from this film too are the other Bond staples: gadgets, buxom blonds, and wonderful little quips and double entendres. This all gave the Bond series a comic book adventure cadence and buoyancy. It didn't take itself too seriously.

But "Casino Royale" jettisons all this and just keeps slogging along with relentless action scenes, brutality, banality and not much else. Yes, the action scenes are astutely choreographed, filmed and edited. But they are needed to shore up a saggy, dragged-out and somewhat convoluted plot.

The opening immediately warns you that this is not "classic" Bond. It sets the film's heavy tone. Bond brutally assassinates two criminals, one by drowning in a lavatory sink, in black-and-white film noir, no less. By contrast in the "Goldfinger" (1964) prequel, Bond blows up a narcotics operation, changes into a tux, romances a cabaret dancer, and easily dispenses with an assassin, all the before the opening credits.

The opening credits of "Casino Royale" alone are another warning. There is not one stylized silhouette of a female model, which was the glamour signature in almost all Bond films. Instead, we just have silhouettes of guy shooting each other and bleeding in Technicolor across the screen. Yuck!

What's horribly pretentious is that the whole film tries to chronicle the apprentice Bond's transition into a 007 assassin. But it's as contrived and unconvincing as Anakin Skywalker's metamorphosis into Darth Vader. And, in the end it's even sappier than the brief marriage of George Lanzenby's Bond to Dianna Rigg in the 1969 "on Her Majesty's Secret Service."

Frankly, I'm not Bond's psychologist and so I really don't care to delve into life's little traumas that shaped 007. I'm content with accepting that he just grew up that way.

Daniel Craig is terribly miscast as Bond. He's a blue collar Bond. He looks self-conscious in a tuxedo. He's too hard chiseled in appearance for the debonair Bond as invented by Ian Flemming.

Craig could have just as easily been cast as one of the villains in the film. His strident, driven demeanor reminds me a little bit of Donovan Grant, the SPECTRE assassin played by Robert Shaw in the 1963 "From Russia with Love." Craig is humorless, and too much on the edge for my tastes. Actually, his squinty eyes, big upper torso, and gait reminds me a little of Popeye the Sailor.

Like the Timothy Dalton Bond, he has no sense of playfulness either. His romantic side seems forced in the film's few dull and gratuitous lovemaking scenes. And, the women cast to play opposite him in this film can barely gain admission into the sorority of Bond babes.

Equally lackluster is Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of high-roller Le Chiffre. He doesn't fit into the shoes of previous legendary bond villains such as Goldfinger, Largo, and Blofeld. Frankly, Mikkelsen is just plain creepy, but not scary. As the top bad guy he seems to be on Valium most of the time.

The silly torture scene at the end is also out of character for him. Mikkelsen doesn't have any of the bully, bluster and swagger of the classic Bond villains. Please give me just one script line like Goldfinger's: "I expect you to die Mr. Bond!" Ho hum.

All of this makes for just another forgetful spy movie with lots of fists and blood and guts, nothing more. It's wrapped itself in the James Bond mystique – which will guarantee a good box office – but pays no homage to the genre.

It's too bad the creators felt they hand to change such a celebrated formula that has sustained the popularity of Bond series for nearly four decades.

Was the above review useful to you?

72 out of 122 people found the following review useful:

A great Bond film? Maybe if you hate the other twenty

Author: mightywillg-1 from United Kingdom
30 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let's start by saying my three star rating of this film is an act of generosity on my part, considering it isn't a bad action film, has some exciting sequences and thrilling moments. But though Bond has been synonymous with action for over forty years, the Bond movies have always been about more than that, namely... fun. This film was almost completely devoid of any fun whatsoever, leaving me with the feeling if you can't get a little fun from a Bond film any more, what the hell kinda world are we living in?! I wasn't as sceptical of Daniel Craig as lots of people seemed to be, knowing he is a fine actor, but his total lack of charisma, humour and charm left me hating his guts. Now people will claim "but this is the closest to Ian Flemings original version of Bond that we've yet seen, and that makes him a good Bond, maybe even the best." But it's always been a clear and obvious fact that the Bond films have never had much in common with Flemming's novels except for the titles, yet it has still become one of the most beloved film franchises of all time; Obviously not beloved enough to stop them taking over forty years of tradition and mythology (the one liners, the gadgets, the over-the-top villains and their over-the-top deaths)and flushing it all down the friggin' toilet! Yes, Die Another Day was a step too far in making things over the top - an invisible car being just one example - but that's no reason to just scrap the whole franchise in terms of what it represents.

Like I said, Bond films SHOULD be about having fun, not leaving the cinema feeling horribly depressed and miserable. A James Bond who stares questioningly at himself in the mirror after killing a bad guy, in a "what am I turning into" kinda way?! Screw that! Bond should kill a guy, make a glib joke, then look for the next scumbag that needs killin'. A Bond who falls in love then cries his eyes out when she dies? Even George Lazenby took the same thing with a little subtle dignity, and they'd just got married! And please, consider this - can you imagine Roger Moore, Connery, or even Dalton, strapped to a chair naked, getting their balls smashed to pieces, screaming their head off like a lunatic? No, because that... is... NOT... FUN!!!

There was a brief glimmer of hope when Craig returns from the near death poisoning experience to the poker table and says "sorry about that, that last hand nearly killed me." I thought, "hooray, James Bond actually made a joke! Only took him a f***ing HOUR!!!!" By the time the end credits start to roll and the Monty Norman theme finally starts to play, it almost seems like a cruel joke of some kind, so far removed is the preceding 140 minutes from what the world has come to recognise as true Bond. Yet, everyone seems to love it, people the world over lapping Casino Royale up like cream from a spy's battered testicles. I guess fun is officially dead, along with the Bond we all grew up with. I certainly shall miss him.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

"Do I look like I give a damn?"

Author: Righty-Sock ( from Mexico
5 January 2009

Anyone who has followed the James Bond series over the last four decades knows that the new Bond has changed... In "Casino Royale," 007 do not identify himself with the classic words, "Bond. James Bond," and instead of playing Chemin-de-Fer or Craps, he plays Poker and he doesn't care whether his vodka martinis are shaken or stirred nor he drinks a Smirnoff vodka, or a five-star Hennessey, or a Dom Pérignon'52... He never pauses to take a finger of Caviar… He never enjoys a good cigar and is less preoccupied with matters of sex…

But he is a more trained Bond, a cold-hearted killer improvising, modifying, and overcoming, uttering to M in one decisive moment his most significant line, "So you want me to be half monk, half hit-man!"

In taking the part, Daniel Craig completely inhabited the character of the super agent 007… There is something empathetic about him and something human…He so lets you in behind his blue eyes and into his emotional life…

His opponent is the villain banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tries to get rich in supplying funds for terrorists… To continue doing so, Le Chiffre wants to win back his losses in a no-limit showdown Poker game with $115,000,000 in chips at Casino Royale in Montenegro…

Ivana Milicevic plays Le Chiffre's Bosnian bodyguard who nearly eliminates our hero… Valenka is harmful but not pure evil as her boss…

Simon Abkarian is the middleman Alex Dimitrios involved with Le Chiffre, who knew where to put his hands on weapons and people who could use them… He works with anyone who has money…

The Italian actress Caterina Murino (Solange) reveals her sexy side as the frustrated woman so upset in her marriage…

Jeffrey Wright plays the undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter 'bleeding chips at the poker tournament;' and Giancarlo Giannini plays the 'contact' Mathis…

Eva Green is Bond's love interest Vesper Lynd… Green and Craig have electric chemistry on screen together… Vesper's character seems ambiguous, impudent and complicated… One night—slumped in the shower fully clothed, radiating inner beauty—her quiet look is capable to melt Bond's cold heart and free his doubtful mind… In another, she disconcerts him with her pretty 'Algerian love knot.'

"Casino Royale" lacks the fundamental technology exhibition which plays an important part in any Bond films... The traditional "James Bond Gun Barrel Sequence" and the "James Bond Theme" disappeared… The only thin bit of continuity is Judi Dench's fifth return as the cool, scheming chief Lady M…

Directed by Martin Campbell, the movie has it all: spectacular locations from Prague, London, Miami and Nassau— and amazing actions involving the superb Aston Martin DB5 coupe in a high-speed mountain chase; a rush to stop a fuel tanker at Miami Airport; a combat with an Ugandan terrorist; a pursue in a four-wheel bulldozer; a breathless foot chase across highest cranes; and an unexpected climax in one of the buildings on the canals of Venice…

Was the above review useful to you?

68 out of 116 people found the following review useful:

not a Bond film

Author: fcasnette from United Kingdom
28 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

this is really a Bruce Willis or Arnie film, not a Bond film at all.

The pre-credit sequence is boring with zero humour or panache in Craig's delivery of the punch line.

Judy Dench is looking old and completely out of place in a film that is supposed to go back to the beginnings of Bond. And we have the oldest cliché in the book of Bond at odds with his superior, blah blah, done in every cop film since the dawn of time.

The Sony product placement is just crass throughout for a Sony/Columbia picture. Is this a movie or an advert? The title song is instantly forgettable with lyrics mumbled.

The cartoon credit sequence is the poorest graphics since Dr No, simply boring with no imagination or wow factor. It looks cheap compared to the great graphics we have come to expect and makes the whole film look cheap compared to greater Cubby Brocolli efforts.

Craig is not debonair, tall, dark or handsome and has no wit or class, totally miscast as Bond. He would be better as the villain's No 2 henchman rather than Bond.

The idea that the world's terrorists depend on a legitimate casino game to fund their activities is as ludicrous as Moonraker's laser guns or Die Another's invisible car, but this is the whole plot of the film.

There are 3 good action sequences and the rest is FAR too long. The love story bit dialogue between Bond and Vesper particularly is yawn inducing with no chemistry between the actors on screen, and Vesper's suicide at the end particularly contrived and unbelievable. The whole end sequence of destroying a Venician building shows no imagination and is obviously just tagged on as an afterthought.

In conclusion it's just another formula action film with none of the class and features that make a good Bond film. The hero could have been any cop/agent/private investigator so the whole has none of the distinctive and memorable scenes that always went into a Bond film.

A big disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

76 out of 132 people found the following review useful:

Oh my god - unbelievable piece of garbage!

Author: Frank Glinski from Germany
5 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Where to start? I don't know.., really! But after the "fabulous" black&white "pre title-sequence" (yawn) the newly styled opener came up I was like "okay, let's leave the theater", we didn't, I suffered through some of the worst, 2+ hours of my poor little life. anyway, I don't want to make this too long because this one doesn't deserve it: I just purely hated it, it's not James it's the Broccoli-Clan trying to stay in the cash-flow, the "we tried to modernize the old Bond"-kind of cash-flow. When I saw the first wigged stuntman on the cranes it was really over - don't put money in this, please - it's garbage - sorry lovers!

Was the above review useful to you?

97 out of 175 people found the following review useful:

Not a Bond movie

Author: danbert8 from United States
25 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you put a 007 on a movie, it should be a Bond movie, not a generic action flick.

What do YOU think of when you think of Bond? I guarantee it won't be in the movie. Let me give you a summary of what Bond signatures were missing from the film.

1. An exciting, explosion filled intro

Nope, in this movie you could have told me it was Fight Club or Kill Bill and I would have believed you. Some punching in a bathroom, that's about it.

2. Naked silhouettes of women in the opening credits and upbeat music

Try bad CGI rendering of card motifs with a horrible score from someone nobody's ever heard of.

3. Sneaking around

You'd think a spy wouldn't go gun blazing into an embassy, but you'd be wrong. After a chase scene taken straight out of The Matrix, he ends up blatantly walking into the embassy shooting, and not even attempting to kill the cameras. He escapes of course, but ends up in the newspaper (some SECRET agent).

4. A sweet car with an awesome chase scene.

Nope, a Ford Focus. Then when he gets an Aston Martin, he gets up to a high speed goes around one corner, and then flips it a billion times.

5. Gadgets!

Nope, Q didn't even make it into this movie. His gadgets are a cell phone and a defibrillator.

6. A maniacal villain

Nope, just some guy who's bad at manipulating the stock market, and he cries blood, which is kinda wussy.

7. A real game of cards

Baccarat was replaced with Texas Hold 'em, because Hollywood had to try and cash in on every popular trend. However, the poker game is drawn out, has little to do with the plot, and is comically predictable. Who'd have though it'd end with everyone going all in, and each having an even more improbably better hand than the last?

8. Bond chicks

Well there was one hot chick in the movie. She was in the movie for 5 minutes, just long enough for her to explain she is married to a bad guy, but not much else. She was tortured and killed. It's a pity because the Bond girl who Bond falls in love with (if that doesn't kill it, nothing will), is obviously not the kind of action filled girl that a secret agent would go for. More like a nun with a side-boob shot.

9. How about some cool weapons?

Wrong again... 90% of everybody uses a pistol. Of course they have infinite ammo, but doesn't everyone these days? There are maybe 2 or 3 assault rifles in the movie, but Bond doesn't use them. He actually makes most of his kills with his bloody fists.

10. Style

Bond is smooth, a connoisseur, and a ladies man. In this movie, he is a monkey in a suit that has no taste at all.

In the end, it was a 5 out of 10 generic action film. But they put a 007 on it, so I give it a 1, only because a slap for Hollywood isn't an option.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 85 people found the following review useful:

WORST Bond & James Bond Movie Ever!!!

Author: gonwk from United States
2 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hi folks,

If there was a lower score than 1, I would have Gladly picked that. What a WASTE of my money. This movie has passed beyond awful.

I thought after being totally disappointed in "Die Another Day" Bond movie ... since they casted the Un-talented Halle Berry as Jinx and making her part of Bond Girl history ... was bad enough ... but I guess the Producers, Casting Agents, and Directors are either sleeping at the helm or they figured ... all they have to do slap "007" in front a movie and whole bunch of idiots will rush to the movies and pay good money ... well, from the "Positive" reviews I have read here I guess they have assumed correctly ... because all of us rushed to the movies to see the Latest BOND Movie.

1) Daniel Craig ... he is the WORST Bond ever casted ... the guy DOES NOT look anything close to a Bond. He looks like a phony 007. He over-played his roles ... what is the deal with the guy and his bottom lip ... keep biting it or something to give him the "Sophisticated" Bond look ... GOD, PLEASE ... let this be his LAST FILM as BOND ... he SUCKS!

2) This Bond movie stinked as a whole ... there was hardly any suspense like the good old Bond movies used to have ... also where the heck were the usual Bond Gadgetry ... just a Stupid Tray popping out so he can use the needle to revive him ... what gives!?!?!? , in the old times with less technology Bond had more State-of-the-Art stuff ...

3) I am getting TIRED of "Judi Dench" as "M" ... this woman looks and sounds less and less realistic as the "M" ... OK, OK, so it sounds great with the Women Libs and all the other politically correct B.S. ... but when is Hollywood going to stop making Movies and Theatre as their Pulpit for getting their agenda thru ... please use other Crappy movies to do it with and LEAVE BOND movies alone ... for God's sake. ALSO, To director of this movie ... how Sexy is it to start the movie by zooming in some Old Bra's wrinkly and sagging Breasts ... meaning "M" ... Judi Dench ... who wanted to get a glimpse of her cleavage ... SICKENING .. I almost tossed my burrito on the head of the gal sitting in front of me in the Theatre.

I guess I better stop now ... since I am running out of time.

Bottom of the Line ...

A) Daniel Craig Got to Go! B) New "M" .. please. C) More suspense and Gadgetry for the next Bond.


Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 231:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [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