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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 226: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 2257 reviews in total 

88 out of 163 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?

21 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

An impressively dark, engaging and exciting entry in the Bond series – just what it needed after Die Another Day

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
11 December 2006

Having just achieved his 00 status, James Bond is assigned to uncover a plot by tracking a bomber for hire. The mission could not go worse as Bond kills the man in an embassy in front of CCTV cameras. Removed from the mission by M, Bond nevertheless follows the only lead he has to Miami where he finds himself working round the edges of a plot by criminal Le Chiffre to invest his clients money in the stock market just before an engineered event should send shares in a direction favourable for him.

After the poor CGI and overblown (if fun) affair that was Die Another Day, the series was at risk of just throwing more and more money at the screen in an attempt to exaggerate and increase the Bond formula to keep fans happy. And, in fairness it seems financially to be working for them but this is not to say that the drastically scaled back feel of Casino Royale is not a welcome change of direction for the series, because for me it most certainly was. Opening with a gritty, short and violent pre-credit sequence, the film moves through a cool title sequence with a typically Bondian (if only so-so) theme song. The film then immediately marks itself out as a step away from the previous film by launching on a great action sequence that is as overblown as the series requires but yet is all the better for seeming real – no ropy Die Another Day CGI here. Casting free-runner Foucan was a great move and this sequence was the high for me. After this the film develops nicely with a solid plot that engaged me easily enough, with interesting characters along the way.

Of course this isn't to say that the series has suddenly put out an introspective character piece, because the world of Bond is all still here. So we have superhuman stunts, gadgets (albeit a practical self-defibrillator as opposed to a mini-helicopter) and the usual types of characters going the way we expect. Those expecting this self-styled "reboot" to provide a depth and emotion that isn't there will be disappointed but regardless this does the Bond formula well – fans will enjoy it and those that were turned off by Die Another Day will find it a welcome return to darker territory. With all the fanboys tired from bemoaning Craig, it is nice to actually see for ourselves what he can do and mostly he is very good. He convinces as a heartless killer and has the presence that suggests that he could do ruthless damage if he had to. I was a bit put off by how regularly he pouts but generally he brings a gravitas to the character that it benefits from. Green is a pretty good Bond girl and brings much, much more to the role than Berry did in the last film. Mikkelsen is a good foil for Bond and is given more interest by his lack of stature (he is essentially facing his last role of the dice in several ways). Dench is as solid as ever while Wright makes a shrewd move in a small character that offers more of the same for a few years to come.

Overall then this is not the brilliant, flawless film that many have claimed, but I completely understand why it has been greeted with such praise. Sat beside Die Another Day, it is a wonderfully dark and brooding Bond with great action replacing some of the CGI and gadget excesses of recent times. Those upset at his blue eyes are best left fuming on the net, because Craig is a great Bond – capable of being dark with the violence and offering the potential for more if the material comes to meet him. A refreshing film with the bond formula in place but with a dark and comparatively restrained tone that makes it realistic enough to get into while still existing in the spy fantasy world.

Was the above review useful to you?

39 out of 66 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?

43 out of 74 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?

33 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Wonderful marketing

Author: Nomasain from Netherlands
17 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Magnificent how they made us believe this one was worth watching. Yet it's barely interesting. The biggest mistake made was the modern day setting. It is supposed to be a prequel! ***SPOILERS AHEAD*** In the fifties, when Fleming wrote this one, I could have been forgiving towards the absence of gadgets and loose women (No female theme song either). But then again, how would they be able to sell their nowadays Fords and Sony's? It's a real challenge to create an interesting movie, based on a 50 year old book. This shows. For instance, James and Vesper show off their I.Q. during their first encounter in a train, by knowing details about each others upbringing at first glance. But later on, James falls for the simplest poker trick in the book. Also, their stereotype male and female character are old-fashioned; not 2006. And the storyline is quite predictable. Some scenes are way to long, and some crucial ones are way to short. Vesper sized him up for the tux? Good enough for S,M,L,XL and XXL, not for tailor-made. I'll bet she used the Sony Vaio to check the MI6-site. What about the reanimation scene after the drowning? Obvious they used a real stiff. No water sprouting out, or any movement of her chest at all, when he tried to restart her circulation and giving her mouth to mouth. (He didn't even try; it might take up to 30 minutes, not seconds...) Today we know how Indiana Jones got his whip, and where his scar comes from. We should have learned why James likes his drink "stirred, not shaken" in this movie. But I guess the latter is nitpicking, it just should have played in the late 50's. (and with a storyline written before and not while filming.) It's still entertaining enough to get it on a budget DVD next year, but not better than my English....

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 58 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?

21 out of 33 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?

21 out of 33 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?

18 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Cromagnon in a suit. worst Bond in years

Author: cwallace-13 from Canada
22 March 2007

I had the chance to see the new Casino Royale and cannot see what people see in it. Daniel Craig plays the worst Bond since Roger Moore. His character demonstrates just how much style and wit Connery had playing the part (my mum says that in his school days, Connery used to have his thugs pick on my uncle). The new character is an automaton, from the ridiculously long foot chase in which both he and the pursued are seemingly able to fly to the monotone, monosyllabic dialogue. The villain is of no consequence (and looks as though he is going to cry at any moment throughout the movie).

For action, the fuel tanker chase is great but let's face it, most people will go down after ninety kicks in the face! The drive in the Aston Martin DB-5 lasts 3 seconds. The "chase" in the Aston DB-S lasts only a little longer when he flips the Aston as though he's driving a "Smart" car.

The highpoint of the film is the soundtrack by David Arnold who weaves a new Bond theme out of the old Bond threads, creating variations on traditional Bond thematics. Chris Cornell's vocals on the main theme are perfect and reflect the shift in Bond's attitude.

Daniel Craig is not to blame for this film as he's quite good but the direction that they've chosen to take with Bond as a not too clever, socially inept, cellphone addicted steroid grown killing machine is disturbing although it may better reflect their new target demographic.

Save your money and watch Daniel Craig in Layer Cake. That character might have made a better Bond.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 40 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?

Page 3 of 226: [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