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 guide
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 8 of 231: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 2310 reviews in total 

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Daniel Craig introduction , he is terrific as tough and brutal James Bond

7/10
Author: ma-cortes from Santander Spain
17 April 2007

Seductive James Bond (Daniel Craig) after getting recently the OO7 status goes Uganda to track down a dangerous terrorist . He attempts to chase a criminal in a high-octane pursuit . Bond continues to follow the lead and decide to investigate independently to M (Judi Dench : Shakespeare in love) , MI6's chief . Following the clues goes Bahamas Islands , there beguiling James Bond seduces the beautiful Solange (Caterina Murino) , Alex Dimitrios' wife , involved with Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen : King Arthur) , a corrupt banker . Meanwhile , there is developed a sensational intrigue about an attempt to blow up a big airplane with a terrifying high-lighting . MI6 assigns 007 the mission to play at the 'Casino of Montenegro' against Le Ciffre , in order to earn him and to finish his activity as terrorist financing . There happens an impressive battle of wits between both enemies with high stakes . For the money control , ¨M¨ assigns him the surveillance of Vesper Lynd (Eva Green : Dreamers , Kingdom of heaven), a gorgeous and elegant agent . In Montenegro , Bond is helped by a local agent named Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini : Man of fire , Darkness , Hannibal) ; besides , another Cia agent (Jeffrey Wright) intervenes into the action .

Daniel Craig as a new James Bond is cool , lacks in irony , suavity and sympathy characterized by Roger Moore ; however , earning coldness , cunning , intelligence and toughness like Sean Connery and nearly the character created by Ian Fleming . Here Bond is a brutal revenger , an implacable agent trying to chase villains , pursuing relentlessly the criminals and traveling around the world : Uganda , Mozambique , Bahamas , Montenegro to achieve his aims , even pulling off the heinous killings . As always , Bond will use gadgets and spectacular cars (Aston Martin) , although I miss the classic role ¨Q¨ , but in this entry doesn't appear . The picture contains sensational pursuits , frenetic action-packed and stimulating scenes like are the happenings on the Embassy , airport and the final in Venice location . Agreeable credit title song and atmospheric musical score by the usual in last entries : David Arnold. Colorful , riveting cinematography by Phil Meheux . The motion picture was professionally directed by Martin Campbell (The Zorro) . The film will appeal to James Bond series' fans.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

True Bond Afficionados Beware.

5/10
Author: wbwilcox3
8 April 2007

As a real Bond buff from the beginning (60s), I found this to be the least faithful of all the 007 movies to the writings of Ian Fleming, who created it all. The authentic British charm and subtlety was replaced with crude, disrespectful behavior. The film was too American. In my view, it had shallow acting, brusque clichés and excessive, unnecessary violence. The "Q" element was deleted, reflecting no interest in new technology that was a keystone of the Bond tradition. The fun of the romantic chase is replaced with a perspective that raw sex is all that matters to our hero. Fleming's Bond had class, something Daniel Craig was never able to display with the limiting role he was asked to portray. Even an excellent performance by Judi Dench had no chance of redeeming this film. Better to spend your money on a Stallone or Schwartzenagger film.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

How NOT to make a Bond.

3/10
Author: bigdgun (bigdgunferd@yahoo.com) from Central California
29 December 2006

This is by far the worst of the James Bond franchise. One can only hope that it does not spell it's own demise. Except for an intense early chase scene on a construction site, the action is stiff, boring and violent for the sake of violence. Even the great chase scene ends in such a mediocre manner that it dispels the entire purpose of the chase. Daniel Craig does OK as a well-built Bond without passion or humor, traits that made Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan endearing and entertaining. M (Judy Dench) is her usual brusque and efficient self.

The movie begins with a retrospect of Bond's first "kill" and his lack of experience and early promotion without garnering the trust of his superiors, is mentioned repeatedly. HOWEVER (and I accent however), M then refers to research done post-9/11. Ouch! And then there is a poker scene (the only reference to a casino in the entire movie) which must go on for at least half an hour and is obviously only there to appeal to America's ESPN poker craze. And come on, $150,000,000 is the only thing at stake here. If Bond can't save the world anymore, then we no longer need him.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Cynical story with a poor plot

4/10
Author: jim-proffit from Finland
27 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I didn't like this film. I think the marketing department have done a wonderful job promoting this movie, but that doesn't make this a good film. Firstly: the script is lame, an anti-climax to say to least. The viewer is left with dissatisfaction. Bond doesn't meet his enemy in the final battle, someone else does the dirty job for him (!). In this way Bond is castrated, left unsatisfied (with the viewer). The end is all too depressing, not because of the story, but because it's bad screen writing. It's more like a very long TV-series episode, but it doesn't work well as an independent feature film, with a beginning, middle and the ending. It limps.

I suppose the meaning with all this violence, betrayal and nihilism in the movie was to explain Bond as person, why he has become that what he is. The problem of course is, that there already is about 20 Bond films that have shaped the Bond archetype, the ideal Bond that we all know and love. A heroic figure, who never loses his cool. A British gentleman. In "Casino Royale" however, our Bond is a temperamental hot blooded thug, who goes after the bad guy to stab him with a knife, just because he got humiliated at the poker table??? I highly suspect that this psycho would have passed the British Secret service psych-tests, no no no...

The plot has lot of other stupidities and silliness. The actions and appearance of those Uganda soldiers to collect their money from the main villain, Le Chiffre, was unnecessary. It came just too rapidly, out of nowhere, and was useless to the plot basically. There was no need to emphasize the villain's greed for money, it's taken for granted. Also when they tried to kill Bond in the hotel, it's not really believable. Professional soldiers wouldn't mess like that and attract unnecessary attention to themselves. It was just for bang bang action I guess, to write them stupid. The poisoning scene and how to survive out of it was just plain ridiculous.

Another stupid question is, how come Bond didn't suspect the Vesper Lynd character when she "somehow" managed to survive from the torture chamber? The end of the movie is down right depressing, nihilism at it's worst. Well, maybe it explains our main character and his motives in the future: A misogynist killer, who has a license to kill and doesn't trust nobody

Just to be fair, there was few scenes where it looked promising. The action sequence in the beginning was good, as always. Superb action very well done and choreographed. Few scenes with Vesper Lynd and Bond flirting also had a classy quality, which reminded me of the old Bond charm.

I suppose the writers had a task to update Bond to this day, but I'm not sure if this is the right way. "More realistic" is what many have said about Casino Royale, what ever that means. Sure, Bond is now more cynical and more full of hate than ever, so if it reflects the values of world today, maybe it is "realistic" then.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Did NOT enjoy this BOND movie!

3/10
Author: (j_miller805) from United States
26 November 2006

It was, at best, a decent action movie. However, this film lacked in almost every other way as far as a Bond movie is concerned. Craig did a fair job as Bond, but is no where even close to being in the same league as Connery, Moore or Brosnan. Not even close.

I sincerely thought it was a mistake not to let Brosnan do a few more movies as he was truly becoming a great Bond. That being said, I tried to be fair and give Craig a chance. I was SADLY DISAPPOINTED.

Starting from opening to finish, this lacked many of the things that make Bond movies unique.

I see that he has already signed for "Bond 22" which is disappointing to me as a fan of 007 movies. I will not spend my hard earned money on any more Bond films until they get someone worth while again. He is as miscast as Timothy Dalton was!!! I am sure he is a fine actor in other areas but he is no BOND. AND I hope they have better writers for the next movie as well! I do not like writing negative things but this movie was not worth the price of admission!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

This movie is the beginning of the end =(

1/10
Author: kmschuzer from United States
29 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

=Many spoilers= Many of the James bond movies were based of books, this movie was based off of the FIRST James Bond novel ever written by Ian Fleming! This movie had HUGE potential and failed miserably in every category imaginable, and I know because I read this book first, and the book was excellent.

The moment I saw the new "dripping blood" opening I knew this movie already lost my loyal James bond fan attention, they changed something that had been the trademark of bond films since "From Russia With Love", the second movie ever made. And where did all the females go during the opening credits? During the opening credits there were no gorgeous half/fully nude woman and on top of that you had a theme song that was not suited for a James bond movie. My list goes on endlessly, but for example, this is the prelude to the older 007 movies right?,the first to be exact,and thats what it was attempting to portray. Then why isn,t he carrying a beretta like he does in the beginning of "Dr No" and he does in the book, and where does the Aston martin come into this picture, it didn't make its debut until "Goldfinger", in the book he drove a Bentley in which he crashed.

And the 2 worst screw ups of all time, it was a high stakes game of baccarat, a gambling card game they play in the book, NOT poker! And the entire ending is completely made up, it made me sit around for an extra 2o minutes, in the book Vesper poisons herself and leaves a note stating she was a double agent, and the books ends with bond saying, "The Bitch Is Dead Now", clean, simple, and straight to the point. Many who read this will think that I am nuts for being so true to the book, but it is the way I am, a hard core James bond fan, and how terrible I thought this movie was written and put together, it should have been the first, and it might has well been portrayed in the future and not the 50's when it was written. This movie should be banished from the 007 series.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Worst Bond Movie Ever

1/10
Author: Azrael from United States
17 March 2007

OK, did these pricks just pluck my loins and my $13.99?...

OK, I'll admit, the new Bond isn't bad (even though Pierce was about a million times better even when the plot was so ludicrous and laughable that you were still happy to pay the 8 bucks at the movie theater to see Bond do what he does best... Take names and get the chick) but holy crap... Not to be a chauvinistic pig but did a woman write this plot? First off, the Bond girls were HORRIBLE (makes me want to watch Elizabeth Hurley from Austin Powers... At least she had some better breasts) not to mention a LOT of the scenes were of James walking up onto the beach with his shirt off or something of the like where he's half (or fully) naked in this movie. Oh yeah, and almost forgot to mention, NO GADGETS?!?!?! WHAT?!?!?!!? Did the new Q look at this plot and laugh so hard at it that he said, "Screw this. I'll be damned if I give anything high tech to this p.o.s. film." Sorry guys, but this film blew more than ... well... if Timothy Dalton played in this flick.

My manliness rating of this double Oh my God, yet more time is stolen from my life: Pathetic.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Worst Bond film in recent memory

4/10
Author: robindonesia from Australia
26 January 2007

What a mess! I'll try and make this brief. Die Another Day was hardly "Citizen Kane". It was overblown and a bit silly, but it worked. It was cool, fun and most importantly it was Bond. Casino Royale however is not. Yes, the character is called James Bond, but everything is gone. Firstly, Craig doesn't have Bond's look, his head is the wrong shape and his hair is blonde! Where is Miss Moneypenny? The gadgets? John Cleese's character from the previous Bond outings? It just isn't Bond anymore! What I hate is how the Director seems to have gone off on his own tangent, said "bugger you" to all the previous movies and done his own thing the complete wrong way. If this is a prequel, why is it set in modern day? Why is Judi Dench still M? The Director seems to want to start the series again and I for one am not down with that arrogant decision. "Shaken or stirred? Does it look like I bloody care?!" This is practically spitting on James Bond's previous image. Combine all these failures with the fact that James Bond has the wit of a 15 year old (saying tactless things like "your gonna die while scratching my balls"), two particularly plain female leads, a poor and bland opening theme and ridiculous pacing for an action film and you end up with a very forgettable and dislikeable movie indeed. I'll give it a 3 because it was junk except for the excellent chase at the beginning.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Boy, do I miss Lazenby...

3/10
Author: chronosaurus from Mexico
30 December 2006

When I started reading the reviews for this movie, many of those focused on... well, James Bond. Or Daniel Craig, for that matter. A lot of divided opinions, on whether he was the worst James Bond since Woody Allen, or the closest to Ian Fleming's original idea. And I'm leaning towards the first man.

But don't mind me wrong... It has nothing to do with the fact that he looks like an Average Joe, that he's blonde or that he doesn't even have an English accent. Its the lack of... "that". If I was talking about football, its the "intangibles" that make a good college player a great prospect. "That" which makes any men in the audience to want to be James Bond right when you leave the theater.

Sean Connery obviously had it. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan too. Timothy Dalton didn't have it, but his theatrical background kind of balanced his performance. Daniel Craig has nothing of that. Lazenby neither, but at least he decided no to take himself that seriously, and therefore was kind of comical.

A bad James Bond choice is enough to take 5 points away from the score. And why is that I'm giving it a 3 out of 10?...Ah, where to start? Well, Judi Dench as M is one good place... I mean, if this was supposed to be the start of everything, did they miss the little fact that she was promoted to M when Bond was already an agent? Yeah, I can forgive another details, but this... And Le Chiffre... he has to be the most pathetic and less imaginative villain I have seen since Franz Sanchez (althought Elliot Carver is right there). And finally, the details... Bond with a machine gun instead of his Walter PPK, Bond leaving a girl to chase the bad guy, Bond not drinking his Martini... Yeah, maybe little details, but little details have been the cornerstone of this franchise.

My conclusion is that, if this wasn't a Bond movie, MAYBE I wouldn't be so rough and give it a 6 or 7. But when you are talking about the longest saga in the history or movies, you have to be more careful than this.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Bond. Stupid Bond

5/10
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?


Page 8 of 231: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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