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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 228: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 2271 reviews in total 

43 out of 76 people found the following review useful:

WORST Bond & James Bond Movie Ever!!!

1/10
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.

THANKS!

Was the above review useful to you?

45 out of 80 people found the following review useful:

James Bond, Not even close

1/10
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?

54 out of 98 people found the following review useful:

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

1/10
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?

76 out of 142 people found the following review useful:

going against the grain, i thought it was dreadful!

1/10
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?

88 out of 166 people found the following review useful:

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

1/10
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?

34 out of 59 people found the following review useful:

no James Bond

1/10
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?

21 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Royally disappointing!

1/10
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?

26 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

What happened - I think I fell asleep

4/10
Author: kazadoodle from Australia
10 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

And in fact, I did - seriously! I was so bored with this movie which just kept going and going, when it should have stopped after 90 minutes, that I actually fell asleep just before the torture scene. This has never happened before. Thank goodness for Gold Class cinema seats. At one stage, I actually found myself saying out loud - come on, will this movie never end!?

Don't get me wrong, the movie has potential, is just needs to be cut down by about 40 minutes. For me, there were far too many pointless fight scenes, chase scenes and card scenes. Which brings me to the question of - why poker? Shouldn't it have been baccarat? Which is far more classy.

I liked Daniel as Bond, but Pierce, as far as I'm concerned, is still the best Bond, as he is the most like Flemming's Bond - refined and tough, not just tough. Pierce's problem as Bond were the scripts - they were quite bad.

I'm waiting for no. 2 Bond with Daniel, and hoping it's better. He has the potential, just needs a little refining.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

What am I missing?

5/10
Author: jcbozman from United States
20 November 2006

I don't get it. I was really looking forward to this movie, and I was unbelievably disappointed. I must be really stupid. Besides being massively confused (too many subplots and way too many characters -- who was I meant to despise? -- who really was the villain?), I kept waiting for some resemblance to the 007 I know and love. Maybe it was true to Ian Fleming's intentions, but not to my view of James Bond -- but more importantly, it came nowhere close to my idea of a movie with a solid plot. Again, I must be missing it. The action was great, the vulnerabilities of this James Bond were evident and I honestly liked the persona he created as well as that of M, but it left me with too many questions. What was the point? Maybe I agree with M -- God I miss the Cold War!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Bond by name only

4/10
Author: jgc2006 from Sydney
4 January 2007

Having seen the Bond franchise become little more than an action blockbuster machine, first in the Timothy Dalton era and then seeing a steady decline from there with Pierce Brosnan, I was duped into thinking that things would be different this time around. This time the special effects had been stripped back, there was less gadgetry and perhaps most importantly, a new Bond. I had also filled in a few blanks myself; this Bond movie would have more style, more COOL!

Of course, had I given it any serious thought and not been caught up in the hype, I would have realized that without a new director (and probably a completely new crew) what we were going to get from Martin Campbell would be more of the same, just with a different Bond. After all, this is the director who is responsible for The Mask of Zorro films. I made a big mistake.

Casino Royale is an action blockbuster without enough action. A spy thriller without intrigue or espionage or any of the cool stuff that made Bond so great in the 60s and 70s. It's a James Bond film by name only. Change the main character's name and you have a very average action film that could easily star Bruce Willis or, dare I say it, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have no problem with Daniel Craig as Bond, but a good actor can't save a bad film. I won't even go into the glaring plot holes which are, quite frankly, insulting.

What amazes me is how Martin Campbell and his team could not look back at the old Bond movies and at least try to get some ideas from them. They are in the perfect position to emulate stylistically some of the best films of the genre and put their own modern spin on it. I'm all for updating, but leave the good stuff in!

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 228: [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 Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history