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 3 of 231: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 2308 reviews in total 

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?

61 out of 108 people found the following review useful:

if it ain't broke - don't fix it!

Author: Zee Folk from United Kingdom
8 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

for the first time James Bond has a strong homo-erotic appeal - you see a lot more male than female nakedness, and then there is, of course, the gay sadomasochistic torture scene where the naked "Bond" has his genitals whipped by a male villain. Where most previous Bonds' main strengths were charm and elegance - this one's a testosterone junkie - a gym locker-room wet dream - and not much else! I really don't mind - but it's not what I expect and it doesn't appeal to me! The screenplay is extremely poor and too much of it doesn't work or doesn't make any sense at all - what was supposed to be inside the metal briefcase near the end in Venice - 10 million in cash?! I don't really mind if the plot is unrealistic - but then it should be funny through exaggeration or parody - which this one certainly isn't! Looks like the makers of this one couldn't quite make up their minds as to what they're trying to do - so in the end they left some of the classic elements (crane chase, airport incident) but not enough to call it an 007 film!

Was the above review useful to you?

85 out of 156 people found the following review useful:

going against the grain, i thought it was dreadful!

Author: cavewoman1948 from United States
29 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

one of the all-time worst. daniel craig looks like a washed-up prizefighter--even has the cauliflower ears. and he's so bulked up (muscle-bound) that his head looks too small for his body. plus he has zero charisma. i understand everyone else they wanted turned down the part, and he was last choice. then they had to cast a lot of really ugly people to try to make him look good by comparison (it doesn't work). the plot is senseless and sloppy. spoilers coming: bond is sent to beat le chiffre at poker so he can't pay off his debts and will have to cooperate with mi5 and the cia. but he's already broke! why not skip the poker game and just bring him in right away? then we would have been spared those long, boring poker sessions. and when bond was poisoned in the middle of the match: who poisoned him, and why? it was never mentioned again! lots of going from one country to another for no particular reason except to show off the scenery and add even more time to this interminably dull movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

94 out of 174 people found the following review useful:

For The Love Of god... Stop calling it a 007 movie

Author: eng-ahmedfayez from Dubai, UAE
24 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was really disappointed and angry after I saw this "Bond" movie, simply because this is not a Bond movie, there are certain characteristics for a Bond movie that weren't there. First of all, Daniel Craig is not suitable for the James bond personality and charisma, he looks like a Russian mafia operator or gangster not a British secret agent known to be classy and elegant.(maybe he has the body but not the looks or charisma)and don't get me started on his acting. Second, Eva green was a major failure she wasn't sexy as a Bond girl should be (Compare her to Halle berry and u will know what I mean) she is the worst bond girl ever Third, where r the gadgets?? James bond without gadgets??!!! Forth, The DB9 appears in the movie in a few scenes maybe two times only(parked), may I ask why isn't it being used????!!! It's very hard to image a Bond movie without a great super car involved in a car chase. fifth, what happened to the Music?? The classical James bond music wasn't there. sixth, I missed the words (Bond,james Bond) and (shaken not stirred), this 007 is not smart and doesn't have any sense of humor. Seventh, what's with that torturing technique didn't they find anything else, everybody in the cinema was laughing. So to sum it up this new "James bond" lakes the looks, gadgets, car, sense of humor and a decent looking girl. Not to mention the weak storyline, the bad scenes and the awful directing of Martin Campbell.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

A matter of (BAD) taste

Author: robell from United States
6 April 2007

The discrepancy between my low opinion of Casino Royale and the nearly universal approval— even enthusiasm—of critics and viewers can be dismissed as merely "a matter of taste," but that is what it is. It seems that the present appetite for special effects and breakneck violence trumps any wish for interesting characterization or for credible or suspenseful plotting.

Because the special effects in this film are excellent, the violence full throttle, and the stunt work abundant and unsurpassed, then there is little or no concern that the plot is muddled and absurd, the continuity fractured, the multiple villains less than memorable, the blandly pretty female lead lacking in glamor or sizzle, and the muscular protagonist now divested of sophistication, mischief, and wit.

Most disturbing is the evident taste for the depiction of brutal torture in the nastiest such scene ever, one which you would expect to appeal only to the S&M "community." Though the public no longer attends bear-baitings and public executions for fun, they find their entertainment in simulated torture that kills or injures no victims, but debases themselves.

I now say a nostalgic farewell to Agent 007 and a curt "get lost" to Agent Oh Oh -Oh, James Bondage.

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

What the bloody hell was this?

Author: Lord_of_TERROR from Australia
4 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film is terrible. The plot barely makes sense, Daniel Craig pouts far more than any human (let alone man) should, there's no good action scenes, the best sequence of the movie looks like an extended Volvo ad and the film has a 45 minute poker sequence in the middle that's no better than Celebrity Poker off the TV, except of course when i watch it on TV i don't know who's going to win. This film was a huge let down. It was hard to imagine that I would look back on the Pierce Brosnan days with fond memories but somehow the makers of this latest debacle have achieved it. But worst of all, worse than the wooden dialogue and bizarre attempt at love story, worse than all that was that there was not a single bad guy worth his salt in the whole movie. If the world doesn't have super villains it surely doesn't need super spies either.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 51 people found the following review useful:

How can you call this a BOND movie!!!?

Author: santiagocii from United Kingdom
27 April 2008

This must have been the worst BOND movie ever made. If we change the title and call it something else..and not ever mentioned there was a spy and a Bond 007 here, then.. perhaps we can say we watched an "interesting" action movie..but a JAMES BOND?? I really can't believe how people call this guy the best James Bond actor ever!? What's going on? All of the sudden the world just forgot what a Bond character suppose to be like? Where is the Charm? the wits? Is it because now we like to see damn brute men killing like gangster more than anything else? wrong!!! James Bond is the only gentleman who could kill his enemies with courtesy!!! if you don't understand that.. then you don't understand anything. WORLD... WAKE UP!!!! CRITICS!!??? WAKE UP!!! I am SO disappointed about reading the positive reviews... ONE THING IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.... with this movie WE HAVE KILLED THE ICON OF JAMES BOND for ever and this is indisputable.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 53 people found the following review useful:

Bad Jason Bourne Copy

Author: ivanterry101 from Ireland
1 January 2007

OK action film with bad dialog, coincidences and the most ridiculous game of poker I have seen. Critics are paid to point out the flaws in movies-which Bond films have in abundance but get away with it because they're "just" Bond films.

The scene on the train where Bond tries to read Moneypenny and vice versa made me feel like punching both of them along with the script writer and the director. It's one of the tackiest pieces of pretentious dialog I have ever seen. How this film got a 9.5 out of 10 in when Harsh Times is called unrealistic is a mystery to me.

Better than other more recent Bond films in general (not hard) and for action sequences especially - but I still don't know why 007 climbs the scaffolding to follow the bomb maker instead of just following him from below. Although it's nothing that hasn't been done before and done better in the Bourne movies.

Also how does Bond know that Moneypenny is running into a trap when she says she's going outside to meet Matheus? It then take weeks for M to ring Bond to ask where the 110 million dollars is. He sails to Venice stopping off at a beach or two and sends in his resignation before he gets the call. I'm giving it a 1 to put some context to the overall rating it gets from so many Muppet's, that give it a 10.

Egotistical nonsensical tripe.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 231: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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