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 6 of 226: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 2254 reviews in total 

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Bond. Stupid Bond

Author: RADU PREDA from Bucharest, EU
7 December 2006

We cannot talk about James Bond the way we talk about all the action movies. The director's imagination is, or it should be, limited by Ian Flemming's books. There are four milestones of a James Bond movie: the personality of the actor who plays Agent 007 (his appearance and look y compris), beautiful women (never less than 2), spectacular (and super-equipped) cars and gadgets (the microwave watch, the vacuum cleaner pen, the dram fire cuff-links etc). Anyone who chooses to see a James Bond movie wants to see all these things. The catchy action is, of course, a „plus", but not a „must": no matter what, all children in this world know that The Good will eventually beat The Bad. And the rest is... details. Applying these on the last Bond we discover that even if it is a „prequel" (meaning the first mission of the main character as agent 00), Casino Royale is the worst episode of the series and the arguments are annoyingly visible. First of all, the Daniel Craig choice is at least controversial. Even if, in my opinion, this is the only goal of the movie, people say that Craig's face recommends him to be not more than Bond's bodyguard. Next, about the dangerous women: enormous gap! De gustibus non disputandum, but Campbell can take Eva Green home with him for all I care, this movie is not the place for her to be. And, even more, she is not even showing in bikini, not to mention original Eve's suit! Another disillusion: the cars. We're back to Aston Martin, a good choice, but the DBS model is smashed like hell after only few seconds of chase run (and besides the travel size defibrillator, we can't find any other option in it). Finally, the gadgets: absolutely none whatsoever! Considering the above mentioned, the two and a half hours of movie are really torturing the spectator who will not appreciate the final scene of submerging a venetian palace (which required high costs and efforts and produced almost no effect) and will surely forget all about the initial spectacular scene of chase; in the end, looking back at the movie as a whole, this scene is having the same effect as that of an adrenaline injection in a dead body. So, Casino Royale is cheap. So cheap! James Bond must be looked for in another movie. „Crank", for example.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

A Bond who has fallen from the family tree ...

Author: Flower_of_the_Lily from United Kingdom
15 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Right from the start, it is evident that the James Bond making his debut in 'Casino Royale' bears small, if any, resemblance to his predecessors. Gone are the gadgets, the gimmicks, the one-liners and general good-natured silliness. James Bond, shortly to receive the fateful designation of 007, as portrayed by Daniel Craig, is brutal (see the very violent pre-credits fight), ruthless, and regards killing as an everyday activity that does not impinge upon himself as a person. Whereas Brosnan's Bond had the glimmerings of a sense of honour ("I usually hate killing an unarmed man, cold-blooded murder is a filthy business" he utters in 'The World is Not Enough') and even sometimes of compassion, Daniel Craig as Bond is the man who would shoot you in the head without even pausing to look you in the eye.

Indeed, (almost) everything about this whole film is re-invented - okay, they've kept the stunning women, beautiful locations, brilliant action sequences (the standout being a chase across a building site that induces vertigo even when sitting safely in a cinema seat) and the scene-stealing performance from Judi Dench as M, but everything else is fresh and new. This is Bond re-invented from the ground up.

Which is probably a good thing. Although the Bond franchise slid a bit off track with Pierce Brosnan's last film, the general consensus is he was the best since Connery and would have been a tough act to follow had the original formula been stuck to. Daniel Craig on the other hand hasn't got so much of a shadow to step out from, and this can only work to his advantage when his most eloquent acting is done minus words - as aforementioned, Bond's usual quips are noticeable by their absence and only a little sparring with the more than equal-to-the-task Vesper Lynd hints at Bond's liking for double entendres.

So, on to the biggest question of them all - is Craig a Bond to beat them all or a trouble-oh seven? Call me a wimp if you will, but I'm going to reserve judgement. Craig is James Bond in this film through sheer force of will - he is Bond because everyone in the film just BELIEVES he is so much. You can almost feel the director and the camera willing him to become the 007 of Ian Fleming's imagination. Whether or not Craig can inhabit the role as Connery or Brosnan did and make it his own it still up for debate - but then this is only his first outing. He could be fantastic - emphasis on the COULD.

But whether or not he is Bond, Craig is a terrific action hero, leaping from cranes, shooting bad guys and generally wrecking havoc in the name of Queen and Country. Mads Mikkelson does himself proud as Le Chiffre, a baddie so bad he weeps blood. Eva Green is suitably luminous as Vesper Lynd, a woman who entrances even the stony-hearted 007, and the action is glorious enough to plug the holes in a flimsy plot. Oh, and did I mention Judi Dench rocks as M? If this is Bond reborn, it's good to see he's retained just a few things from his previous life.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Heavily Hyped But Still A Good Action Movie

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
20 September 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Things weren't looking too promising when new Bond Daniel Craig was unveiled to the general public . Due to health and safety regulations Craig was required by law to wear a life jacket as the speedboat he was in shot along the Thames and stopped in front of a crowd of not very enthusiastic paparazzi . Craig didn't do his cause much good by his awkward mannerisms that seemed to shout " I'm actually a serious thespian and all this publicity is slightly annoying to a self respecting luvvie like myself " On top of that the press were very vocal in stating that this Bond had blonde hair and would never be taken seriously as Ian Fleming's superhero . It's impossible to believe this now but very few people thought Daniel Craig would be any type of success in the role

To their credit the producers have gone back and rewritten history . CASINO ROYALE was the first Bond novel and so this cinematic version of CASINO ROYALE is effectively the first Bond movie with previous entries DR NO to DIE ANOTHER DAY being conveniently forgotten about . It was a massive gamble to take but the producers just about manage to pull it off . What it does is make Bond a far more rounded character rather than the cartoonish parody he was in the lesser Moore films or DIE ANOTHER DAY . It also leaves more scope for future films in the franchise since we an introductory scene for CIA agent Felix Leiter who " disagreed with something that ate him " in LICENCE TO KILL . Unfortunately he's not given much to do here or in the later QUANTUM OF SOLACE . It seems strange with hindsight that Leiter was brought back in this case

Despite the hype surrounding CR which many people claim is the greatest Bond movie ever there are a few flaws to it . One is that it follows the novel a bit too closely in the second half . In the novel Le Chiffre doesn't really do anything evil except play cards and wallop Bond in the genitals and this is recreated on screen . However this is rather small fry for a movie bad guy and you do find yourself wishing his cruelty could have fleshed out more . There's also an obligatory daft sequence where a defibrillator comes in to play which leads you to ask if Bond's a clairvoyant . CR also feels overlong by about half an hour

That said the first half is superb and the African scenes where Bond pursues his quarry back to the embassy are amongst the most exciting action sequences you will see in any movie . Likewise the attempted bombing at Miami airport that shows Bond can be a callous assassin when he has to be . Craig is wonderful in the role and he's helped in no small part by a lack of comedy situations and characters as seen in previous entries . Some people might miss Q and his gadgets but I didn't . I much preferred this serious character driven Bond

CASINO ROYALE breathes new life in to a cinema franchise that is over 40 years old . Many critics describe it as the best Bond ever but I have to disagree because what stops it being so is that suffers from a rather weak second half where it sticks too rigedly to the book but for the first hour and twenty minutes I was compelled by this reinvention of James Bond 007

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

This is not really a Bond movie

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?

15 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Bond franchise is dead and dollar business only

Author: kestanafout from London, England
15 December 2006

Well, no true bond fan can love what it has became. It is not Craig's fault, but the whole thing.

Where has gone the nostalgia associated with the series, the fine humor, the epic/classic soundtrack, the cool pace of romanticism and classic action, etc .... Too much sterile noise, stunts, runs, ... it is the average Hollywood action movie and absolutely nothing else. It could be MI 4 or XXX 3 ... Technology and noise are not movies subjects. Is it made only for Americans and no culture background people ? Boring desolation for 30+ old people out there in the world, better watch Chuk Norris on TV for free. Will we remember this movie in many years, as we do for Moore and Connery ? No.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Waist of Time

Author: st2006 from United States
25 December 2006

Long, boring, not intelligent at all movie. Strip "James Bond" label from the movie, it will not make C-. It is not the "Bond" movie as we like to enjoy - sharp personalty, little sarcasm, sparks in the yeas of Bond. Craig is just another LAPD detective who happens to speak with the funny accent. Obviously, someone was trying to save a back on Brosanan.

We like all Bond's fantastic tools and toys - you will not see any in this movie. There are 2 sets of fights and a sinking house. They are glued to long pointless dialogs and a card game.

I think, it is the END of Bondina.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

A fallible and gullible James Bond

Author: PWNYCNY from United States
2 December 2006

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: "Beware of the hype." There is an inverse relationship between the level of hype and the quality of a movie, and proof of this is this movie. The opening title song is awful, the story inane, and this James Bond is a far cry from the invincible hero of films from the past. Daniel Craig gives a credible performance as a fallible and gullible James Bond and the the leading ladies are lovely, especially Vesper. But good acting and pretty ladies cannot save this movie from what is a weak story. But that should not be surprise. After all, given all the hype that preceded this movie, what else should one expect?

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Not a nice Bond movie

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?

20 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

The true 007 concept totally ruined!

Author: andreas-granholm from Sweden
24 November 2006

Complete lack of Bond-sense. Sorry, not completely, but it's quickly mentioned -Aston martin. I was very disappointed, the worst scenario became reality: - A none-sense American action with loads of padding, nothing that will make history. The two last movies attempted to go back to the original feeling of Bond, and succeeded quite well. But this new movie is a scorn to the whole idea of Bond.

My pity goes out to Daniel Craig who didn't stand a chance to show himself worthy of being a good Bond. In this movie no one would be a good Bond, not even Sean Connery.

Humbly With glint in the eye… Andreas

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

Worst Bond Movie Ever

Author: ckeevil from Canada
12 April 2007

This bond was nothing even close to what the Bond character should be and has always been in the previous movies. I understand that they were trying to show how Bond got started as 007, which could have worked out had it been done properly. Him falling in love was just too much like the movie where he got married only to have his wife killed shortly after. The writers must have been able to come up with something a little more original than that if they tried. They removed Q from the movie again like they tried in the 60's and it was as big a mistake then as it was now. Not nearly enough high tech gadgets in the movie this time, which is another feature that has always been an important part of what makes a James Bond movie a James Bond movie. The real kicker was the end of the movie. It makes you feel like half of the movie is missing, like you need to look for disk 2 in the case. They went a completely different direction with this movie and in my opinion it failed. I feel that this was the worst Bond movie ever, a real let down.!! :(

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 226: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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