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 3 of 231: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 2302 reviews in total 

61 out of 106 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?

40 out of 65 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?

50 out of 85 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?

84 out of 153 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?

93 out of 171 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?

31 out of 48 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?

18 out of 23 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?

26 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

Royally disappointing!

Author: rams_lakers from Colorado
26 April 2008

I decided to skip this new Bond movie at the box office because I did not like the way Bond movies have become. Any Bond movie after 1983 is total crap, and this series should have died a long time ago to save face.

In the early part of Casino Royale there is an unbelievable chase scene. The black terrorist runs and jumps up and over, through and around, and vaulting through holes in the wall like he's Spider-man. What's even sillier is that Daniel Craig, the new Bond remake flavor of the present, follows him step for step. 20 minutes of this chase is ridiculous as this terrorist should have given Bond the slip 17 minutes ago.

Judi Dench makes another dreadful appearance as M. Why was there no male M during this time? It's like the producers chose to totally ignore the fact that there was an original M at one point. Dench, who I've always hated as M, resorts to what she does best - chastising Bond throughout the movie. They first brought her in to berate Brosnan for sleeping around in a sorry attempt to bring political correctness into the franchise. "Bond shouldn't be having limitless sex – GASP!!!" Most idiots ignore the intent – but I see through the guise and refuse to give in to the new films that support this lame idea. Dench and the lines she is given completely ruined the franchise.

Back in the day there was less fuss about being a Bond Girl and more talent involved in actually being one. The newer actresses are all tickled to be considered bona fide Bond Girls, a fact that dilutes the integrity of the honor. You shut up and play a bimbo – you don't talk about what an honor it is. The honor goes to the pioneers – not the wannabe's! Hale Berry is sexy, but she is no more a Bond Girl to me than Phyllis Diller – because she takes away the mystery of the role by blabbing about how she always wanted to be one in an interview. Being a Bond Girl is better left unsaid. Let the Bond geeks decide who is worthy.

The boring poker game nearly put me to sleep as the producers decided to take advantage of the newest fad that is being shown every hour of the day by ESPN. Sitting on your ass while playing cards is NOT a sport! I kept waiting for this movie to end, and it almost ended 3 times but we were given even more crap to wade through. Bond gets tortured Japanese World War II style – right in the nuts with a hard swinging rope. I'm surprised he could even bed a Bond Girl after these brutal scenes. Is that why he never had kids? And who is that stupid silent bald guy with the big pointy ears? Is he supposed to be intimidating or menacing as he stares at everyone in the villain's lair? Lame sidekicks anyone? This goon was just a nothing.

I can't leave out Daniel Craig's looks – it was extremely hard for me to get around those enormous batwings he has for ears. He looks more like Charlie from the Chocolate Factory's Dad with those ears than any Bond. And those two ladies that "check him out" as he drops off the car - PUH-lease! Why is there no Q and gadgets? Bond the text messager - wow I'm impressed. NOT! Looks like cell phones sell brand names better. Can't get that big money contract for something unproduced like an underwater car. I give this movie a 1 out of 10. While I can watch the pre-1985 Bond movies several times - this one does not warrant another viewing.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 41 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:

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