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 guide
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 2309 reviews in total 

72 out of 123 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 how the screenplays, casting, and creative direction of the 007 films produced after "Goldeneye" seem to get worse and worse in terms of art and entertainment values? With "Casino Royale," the franchise hits rock bottom. "Casino Royale" is, objectively, and to date, 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 surprisingly unremarkable score sounds melodramatic and overly derivative, like a cheap John Barry knock off.

5) Producer infamy/creative bankruptcy: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film's "legendary" producers, amazingly lack the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond's personal/professional timeline on the screen. Instead, they bring 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career--in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond's trademark charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgustingly 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 uplifting entertainment. The proof is in the picture.

Yet "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 (a new) James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise's longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (a legacy earned by better films with more inspired creative contributions).

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 objective merit as art or entertainment.

4. Positive user ratings for this movie on IMDb neither reflect nor establish this film's objective merit as art or entertainment.

Was the above review useful to you?

139 out of 257 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 124 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?

69 out of 120 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 135 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?

44 out of 72 people found the following review useful:

Nothing More Than An Enjoyable Action Flick

Author: hugibert_aldred from United Kingdom
5 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, unlike many I did not hold my hands up in despair, and predict a flop. I was willing to give him a chance, and certainly felt he could give something different to the role.

Sadly, this film left me with an extreme sense of frustration. Perhaps due to my high hopes for the film, and the many positive reviews? And yet, it seems beyond my personal expectations. The film tried too hard to be different, the end result being an entirely different Bond film, but a very unoriginal Hollywoodised action flick.

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, but what Hollywood action hero isn't tough and brutal? In fact, it was the desire for Hollywood action that ruined this film for me.

For example, the scene containing free running (parkour) near the beginning epitomises the desire for great action, and little sense. If you recall, there is a moment where Bond decides to climb into some sort of demolition vehicle. Yes, it looked great as the vehicle came crashing through a concrete wall, but if we actually think about it, there was no need whatsoever? It did not achieve anything, not just in terms of film artistry, but also plot - it didn't help him catch the bad guy!

The free running itself was another attempt by the director to wow the audience into submission, there was quite literally no point to it whatsoever. Why on earth did the villain decide to go up a crane? - "I know, I can escape him by climbing to the top of a crane" - No my friend you would have been better off finding yourself a car. I am not surprised this film has been received well and that it is a hit at the box office - but I'm sorry Mr.Campbell, I see through you.

I will openly admit I found the poker scenes enjoyable, and I found Mads Mikklesen's performance particularly enjoyable.

Not a bad effort, and it does indeed breathe new life into the Bond genre, but I could quite easily go down to Blockbuster, search the action section for 5 minutes and find something just as good! Ultimately, what I found offensive about this film, was that all involved seemed to believe that if they throw a load of heavy duty action scenes at the audience to satisfy us - not this film goer I'm afraid.. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 87 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?

98 out of 181 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?

40 out of 66 people found the following review useful:

no James Bond

Author: escamillio from berlin, germany
12 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Thsi film is no James Bond film at all. It misses all the charme, elegance and class of the series and is merely another action film of the kind of Lethal Weapon or 24. It was boring and unsatisfying, and Daniel Craig is just miscast. I am a big fan of the James Bond films, but I was very disappointed in this one. Why were they trying to destroy the myth of James Bond? He never war a cold hearted, brutal killer. Her usually got the girl and not got all of them killed. He was charming and a gentleman of subtle wit. And he was good looking. Somehow all of that was missing in this film. And why on earth was this about Bond besoming 007, if the setting was nowadays? Surely it should have taken place in the 60ies? Whoever tried to reinvent Bond in this film ruined it for me.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 88 people found the following review useful:

James Bond, Not even close

Author: jerryfr40 from United States
4 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie may have been alright for an action movie but it did not even come close to any of it's predecessors. The movie lacked the action, gadgetry, and comedy which has been the trademark of Bond. Thru out this movie Bond makes stupid mistakes and people die because of them. The opening scene was quite good but that was the high point of the movie. It fails to ever achieve that height again. Several times near the end you are led to believe your torture is over only to have it drug out even further. While there are twists the trademark action scenes are nearly non existent. One in the beginning and one near the end. If you are a Bond fan from the days of Connery and Moore you will be terribly disappointed. If you have never seen a Bond movie you may be satisfied with this effort.

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