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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 231: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 2302 reviews in total 

93 out of 171 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?

31 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

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

1/10
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

1/10
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!

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?

27 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

What the bloody hell was this?

1/10
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

1/10
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 rottentomatoes.com 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?

49 out of 85 people found the following review useful:

Great disappointment - pity (may contain SPOILERS)

8/10
Author: wickey from Slovakia
17 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK, I just came back from the cinema and I have to admit, that I am a huge James Bond fan and saw all 20 previous movies again in about last 3 weeks as a preparation for this one. So all my statements will be affected by that.

At first (again) the decision to make Craig new Bond is not good I believe. After watching the movie I am definitely convinced. Craig misses the style of Brosnan and Connery and becomes the with Dalton the worst Bond in the series.

Second thing that I could not bare and thought I will leave the theater - the dialogs (especially between Bond and Vesper) - some of them are just like cutted out from some cheap soap opera from 80s.. If there will be a poll about shooting the script writer, I will vote for yes.

Third thing - the plot - I mean I really enjoy the poker game and I like movies about it, but this? The half movie was like - oh, let's play some more poker, it is so much fun and excitement.. Not really my cup of coffee. Anyway multiple endings, absolutely not consistent plot with too many ups and downs..

Fourth thing - product placement. I know, that most of the movies has it, but this was like - oh look at all those Sony Vaio notebooks, that all secret agents have, oh look, he use Omega instead of Rolex ( -__- ) and of course all the vehicles around the world are Ford concern (Ford, Jaguar, Volvo, Aston Martin, Land Rover..)

Well it was good action movie with some dude, trying to be cool as James Bond, but he just doesn't have it. Pity, that it is a part of the series.

Anyway it is still a bit better, than the last movie Die Another Day. (that one is worst on my list, this one a place above - second worst from all.

6/10 (only for being average action movie and hoping to be better next time.) ________________________ Volvo rulezzz!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

This is not really a Bond movie

1/10
Author: rjo-ad01 from United States
27 December 2006

As an avid Bond watcher, and having watched each one several times, and having watched this one at a movie house just yesterday with three other interested persons, I'm considering moving on to another interest. This movie did not interest me in the least! It is not to be considered as high brow literary work but as interesting action movies. This one is interesting for the first few minutes and then looses my interest from then on. The storyline is difficult to understand and there are no outrages gadgets or other Bond like characteristics that I have been used to. Where were the incredibly beautiful women and sequences of action in ever changing locals? I was not only confused by the storyline but also bored by the characters. I was having trouble determining who were the good and bad guys. For a time I thought that Bond was the bad guy and couldn't figure out who was supposed to be Bond then. For the entire movie, where were the beautiful women? Some of the best ones were not the final one that Bond was after in actuality. As a final note of confusion, what about that supposed largest plane in the world! What was the point of that sequence? It could have been left out of the movie entirely and it wouldn't have made any difference at all. Final comment, this one was worse than any movie that I've considered the worst, so there to the writers, producers and directors of this mess!

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 32 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?

24 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Not a nice Bond movie

1/10
Author: vcupid23 from Egypt
7 March 2007

I don't know what is wrong with you all , every one is talking about that movie as it is a great one , but in my point of view , it is not nice at all .. first , in compare to other bond movies , we cant not see any cars chase , any real action scene.. As you can see , this movie didn't cost a lot , as other Bond movies , where is the huge explosions , where is the projects of world controlling mad masters under the sea , or the desert .. We cant see any submarines , any real fight , even Bond's super car has nothing to do except being crashed .. I don't know why they didn't cost the movie a lot , i am sure that any Bond's movie of 70's costs more than this 2006 one .. any way , the movie make me disappointed

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 231: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [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