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 2301 reviews in total 

17 out of 22 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?

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?

27 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

Bond Reboot

1/10
Author: sohmflooring from United States
27 November 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 56 people found the following review useful:

Wonderful marketing

4/10
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?

38 out of 64 people found the following review useful:

7.9 my a**e

1/10
Author: jjlwilliams from EU
14 April 2007

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).

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 68 people found the following review useful:

Does not follow the traditional formula-Timeline is out of line.

1/10
Author: eltonpa15934 from United States
18 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was the worst movie in the Bond collection. It is hard to follow. If it is as stated a "prequel" then why is "M" Judi Dench? Not that she was ever any good in that role. But the time line is all wrong because of her. The "M" should have been a man and all the autos should have been of the 60's era. Bond is invincible; except in this awful movie. I am taking my DVD back and trading it for something much better like "The Attack of the Killer Bees" or "Bonzo goes Ape." To the producers and owners of the Bond Series KNOW THIS: I will not buy another non formula Bond Picture. Get back to the Roger Moore formulas and fast because you are not smart enough to make a better Bond picture.This movie was too hard to follow, had the wrong items for the time line, and was very poorly thought out.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

James Bond is officially *DEAD*

1/10
Author: MSane from Sweden
3 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

JB below is short for "the James Bond concept". CR below is short for Casono Royal.

JB: Opens with an action scene that is the climax of his previous mission. CR: Opens with James Bond portrayed as a cold-hearted murderer.

JB: Somewhat realistic action sequences. CR: Bad guys runs up wall as if this is a Matrix movie.

JB: James Bond's boss, M, is a man to whom James has respect. CR: James breaks into the home of M and hacks into her computer.

JB: Visits Q's lab to get some new gadgets. CR: No Q. No gadgets.

JB: Bond catches bad guys, killing them in self defense. CR: Bond attaches bombs to bad guys, smiles in a sinister way when they blow up.

JB: Has a story. Has a villain with a "world-domination scheme". CR: Has no story. Has a villain who plays the stock market, and when that fails... plays poker.

JB: Has a gigantic climatic end-scene. CR: Anti-climax #1: Le Chifre gets killed by unknown villain. Anti-climax #2: Bond and Lynd on a romantic boat trip. Anti-climax #3: Lynd dies. Anti-climax #4: Bond shots Mr. White and before we actually understands who White is and his motive etc. the movie ends.

JB: Ends with Bond and his babe together. CR: Babe is already dead, so it ends with Bond, presumably, murdering another guy.

SUMMARY: Daniel Craig essentially make a cameo of his character in "The Road To Perdition". It's not Bond. There's senseless killing, no Bond-babe, no one-liners, no great end-scene, no gadgets, no suspense, no story...

RATING(if this was any action movie): 3/10.

RATING (for being a Bond-movie): 1/10.

I'm sad I actually paid to see this as it might encourage the producers to make another movie like this one.

BOND IS DEAD. I hope they won't make another movie like this and call it Bond.

*** EDIT *** JB: Had a yerning Monneypenny. CR: Has money.

And to all the people complaining that "this IS the REAL Bond! straight from the novels!". Ahem.. this may be the Bond from the novel but it's not the Bond that's been in movies for the past decades. That's the Bond we've expected to see. That's the Bond we want to see.

If they really want another character. Fine. But give it another name. 008 or whatever.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

This Film Heralds The End Of The 007 Franchise

1/10
Author: gatsby2244 from India
7 September 2007

One can only watch this film with utter horror and disbelief. It's an absolute disaster, and the rave reviews it has received show that film critics are among the real villains in our world : these worthless scoundrels denounce a superb actor like Roger Moore, who made seven blockbuster Bond movies ( yes, for your information, you idiots, even " A View To A Kill " WAS a commercial success ), and hail this wimp of an actor Daniel Craig as the best Bond since Sean Connery ?Absolute HOGWASH. Go see this film, and then watch "The Spy Who Loved Me" and " Thunderball". Unless you are totally warped, you will realize that this film has completely destroyed Bond, and it will need a really great actor to resurrect him, the greatest spy in the world.And of course,it will take a good screenplay too. In an age where action films are made with more and more sophistication than ever before, this film relies on primitive brutality to get things going.Craig is neither good-looking nor charming- he has the grace of an orang-utan.Those who cast him as Bond were insane.AVOID this overrated piece of trash !

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 35 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