|Page 4 of 231:||             |
|Index||2308 reviews in total|
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.
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.
*** 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!!!
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.
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
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.
*** 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....
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!
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
Well...it wasn't horrible, but it certainly wasn't a Bond film, as I
have come to think of them and of the Bond character in particular.
Perhaps this ought to have been 'Casino Royale' introducing Joe Blow
008, or anyone other than James Bond 007. You've got an actor
reminiscent of Steve McQueen who is still young looking and strong...a
little 'thugish'...who runs into this film and runs around an awful lot
avoiding death and (it seems) a million bullets at almost every turn.
I said I'd be running for the exit if EON put out a 'serious' Bond film or one that took itself or the Bond character too seriously. I stayed for all of it, although the action sequences became a little tedious at times. Gone is most of the fun, in my opinion.
Is it good film-making? Technically it's quite good. Only a few green screen effects that are awful, but they are only a few seconds in length and as soon as you become aware of the trick...they're gone.
The movie begins with a chase sequence that reminded me of the reality TV show 'Fear Factor'. It is very clever and well done.
The title sequence, although pretty to watch, is also a departure from the classic 007 title format. There are no female forms, no female faces, no vignettes of scenes in the movie, unless you consider playing cards and gun play vignettes of this movie. That was disappointing at the outset.
Also disappointing is the absence of the unbelievable gadgets from Q Branch. What you have in this movie are cellphones that take a beating and keep on working, BlackBerry-type devices that do the same thing and a medical gadget that apparently was produced by the low ball bidder for the British Secret Service.
I can't say much else that would not include spoilers, so I'll stop here.
If you liked 'Armageddon' (not a Bond film), you'll probably like this one. I hated 'Armageddon' and just tolerated this 'almost too serious' Bond movie. If you want an overly-complicated plot line, lots of action and noise, then you're going to love this movie.
OK, I've given my initial comments time to age and several months later now I have to downgrade my rating to a (1). I can't ever imagine watching this thing again for any reason. Good technical film-making, but just awful any other way you look at it.
If the Bond genre is going to be more of the same with the same actor, then the series is finished, at least for me. I will not go see another Bond film of the same 'serious' nature with this new Bond actor. It would just be a waste of time and my entertainment dollar.
Never in a million years is this film as great as you're all making out! This film is different (NOT BETTER) than the other bond films and so has all the tired, boring sequences that you are just waiting for the 'hero' to sidestep so you can go and do something more interesting instead. There is a 'twist' (two in fact) and if you're over the age of ten i'm sure you'll get them within the first thirty minutes (although it feels a bit longer). I'm totally fed up...tell me, are you all being paid to give this film a high rating or are you just so in love with bond that you will give any film of this nature a thumbs up? Don't bother with this film, a waste of time and money (mine, yours and theirs).
|Page 4 of 231:||             |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|