Casino Royale (2006) User Reviews

"Bordello Royale"

[sandy-kopi · 1/10 · 19 November 2006]

If you consider yourself a James Bond fan and yet enjoyed this film, there is a problem.

Just like everyone else, when I first saw that Daniel Craig was to replace Pierce Brosnan in the role, I was a bit confused. His ice cold looks seemed to be quite a stretch from the image we have of James Bond. Maybe "they" know some things I don't about 007, maybe I've been missing something about the character. Plus,the hype around the production was excellent,the rumor was that the filmmakers have decided to be more daring in many aspects. Nothing wrong with that, as a long as you know what you're doing.

But at the very first frame of the film,my original skepticism re-emerged:

The opening scene happens in a sombre black and white cold war setting in which Bond makes no spectacular entrance, chatting with his enemy and finishing the mission with his fists inside a...dirty public restroom. Then Bond spins around, aiming his gun at the camera, taking the classic pose. Right then, I couldn't help myself but noticing the restroom tiles in the background(!) and this blond muscular hunk in the center of the screen suggesting: " I am your NEW James Bond!". "Not yet,gentlemen" did I think.

Still, let's give them a second chance, here comes the long-awaited opening credits. A beautiful animation of paisley patterns and stylized men fighting in slow-motion,turning into flying hearts,spades,clubs and diamonds at each blow. But something is missing: where are the gorgeous nude feminine silhouettes? Where are the girls? Gone !!! Why???!!! At this point, I feared the worst: did the producers decide purposely to get rid of everything we actually loved about James Bond?!

But here comes hope:James Bond chases a man through a building site,climbing on cranes, jumping and falling hard. Great, this might not be a real James Bond flick, but at least, we're in for some good entertainment. Right?

Wrong: The rest of the film is nothing but a long (two and a half hours long!)demonstration on how to annihilate a movie landmark character.

No Monneypenny,no "Q",no "R", and every time "M" (Judi Drench) appears on the screen, the ONLY thing she ever does is begging Bond to stop doing what he's doing and come back to his senses. Yet,all I could hear from her was: "What have you done to James Bond? Who are you, blond man?! Why don't you ever smile? Why don't you ever say anything witty? How come the only gadget you use is a cell phone? How dare you wreck THE 1964 Aston Martin in only 3 minutes? How could you fall in love with such a boring girl? What do you want from us? Bring us back England's most precious hero!"

The other characters barely exist: The villain, named Le Chiffre, is a card player who's task is to finance terrorism by playing poker. Does he cheat ? no. Why? He might be a villain, but will not take his cruelty as far as... cheating! We know he's the villain since his left eye bleeds once in a while and he acts like everything is fine. Who knows,maybe someday,we'll get to see a villain who plays Monopoly with a runny nose. So scary.

Then I thought: "I get it! His damaged eye is in fact a technological wonder that allows him to see the other player's cards thanks to the mysterious blond girl, in the background, who's eye is a camera placed surgically inside her head and feeds Le Chiffre with her own vision! Great!". Was I right ? Of course not, that would be something you'd see in a James Bond film...

But here comes the most sacrilegious scene EVER to come out of a James Bond film:

James Bond (let's keep using this name, for the lack of a better one) is taken prisoner and dragged in a basement, he is entirely stripped from his clothes and attached on a chair without a seat, letting 007's "genitals" dangling from underneath (Yes,you heard right). Le Chiffre proceeds to swing a large heavy rope and hits her majesty's favorite secret agent's nuts over and over. Bond screams in pain but does not reveal the bank account number. What a man. Does he escape? Does he fight back in the most ingenious manner and eliminates his torturer? No, he passes out and wakes up in a hospital.

The torture may have stopped for Bond, but increases for me: Bond finds comfort in the arms of his girlfriend Vesper (yes, girlfriend) who tells him, to rebuild his pride, that even if the only thing left from him was his little finger, she would still love him. To which, the emasculated James Bond replies (watch out, humor coming your way): "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger." Can we please stop talking about mister Bond smashed testicles and go on with this never-ending-going-nowhere-story?! And don't we know that if Bond was ever blown to smithereens, the only thing left from him should precisely be his genitals?

There were other problems with the film of course,such as the boring story, and the fact that the casino (which seemed to be the perfect setting for a James Bond film) turned out to be so poorly exploited.

Giving this film one star might not be fair (do you ever read a review unless it has a 1 or a 10 star rating?),but the main problem goes beyond the bad choices added by the filmmakers throughout the film. The problem is that the film was made with the wrong "spirit" and doesn't take in consideration that, unlike other movies, James Bond belongs more to the public than to its makers, and that this rare fact deserves to be honored.

Don't mess with MY James Bond.

Not your father's James Bond

[villard · 1/10 · 23 November 2006]

OK, this is the 21st century. So, maybe it's time for even the Bond genre to get a tune-up for new generation audiences. At least that's what the producers thought.

But the New Bond is as disappointing as New Coke. Nothing beats the original.

For starters, the producers seemed to make sure to keep everything out of the screenplay for "Casino Royale" that made the Bond series unique, exciting, engaging and fun.

The so-called "Bond formula" balanced sadism with sensuality, and ironic humor. Sadly missing from this film too are the other Bond staples: gadgets, buxom blonds, and wonderful little quips and double entendres. This all gave the Bond series a comic book adventure cadence and buoyancy. It didn't take itself too seriously.

But "Casino Royale" jettisons all this and just keeps slogging along with relentless action scenes, brutality, banality and not much else. Yes, the action scenes are astutely choreographed, filmed and edited. But they are needed to shore up a saggy, dragged-out and somewhat convoluted plot.

The opening immediately warns you that this is not "classic" Bond. It sets the film's heavy tone. Bond brutally assassinates two criminals, one by drowning in a lavatory sink, in black-and-white film noir, no less. By contrast in the "Goldfinger" (1964) prequel, Bond blows up a narcotics operation, changes into a tux, romances a cabaret dancer, and easily dispenses with an assassin, all the before the opening credits.

The opening credits of "Casino Royale" alone are another warning. There is not one stylized silhouette of a female model, which was the glamour signature in almost all Bond films. Instead, we just have silhouettes of guy shooting each other and bleeding in Technicolor across the screen. Yuck!

What's horribly pretentious is that the whole film tries to chronicle the apprentice Bond's transition into a 007 assassin. But it's as contrived and unconvincing as Anakin Skywalker's metamorphosis into Darth Vader. And, in the end it's even sappier than the brief marriage of George Lanzenby's Bond to Dianna Rigg in the 1969 "on Her Majesty's Secret Service."

Frankly, I'm not Bond's psychologist and so I really don't care to delve into life's little traumas that shaped 007. I'm content with accepting that he just grew up that way.

Daniel Craig is terribly miscast as Bond. He's a blue collar Bond. He looks self-conscious in a tuxedo. He's too hard chiseled in appearance for the debonair Bond as invented by Ian Flemming.

Craig could have just as easily been cast as one of the villains in the film. His strident, driven demeanor reminds me a little bit of Donovan Grant, the SPECTRE assassin played by Robert Shaw in the 1963 "From Russia with Love." Craig is humorless, and too much on the edge for my tastes. Actually, his squinty eyes, big upper torso, and gait reminds me a little of Popeye the Sailor.

Like the Timothy Dalton Bond, he has no sense of playfulness either. His romantic side seems forced in the film's few dull and gratuitous lovemaking scenes. And, the women cast to play opposite him in this film can barely gain admission into the sorority of Bond babes.

Equally lackluster is Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of high-roller Le Chiffre. He doesn't fit into the shoes of previous legendary bond villains such as Goldfinger, Largo, and Blofeld. Frankly, Mikkelsen is just plain creepy, but not scary. As the top bad guy he seems to be on Valium most of the time.

The silly torture scene at the end is also out of character for him. Mikkelsen doesn't have any of the bully, bluster and swagger of the classic Bond villains. Please give me just one script line like Goldfinger's: "I expect you to die Mr. Bond!" Ho hum.

All of this makes for just another forgetful spy movie with lots of fists and blood and guts, nothing more. It's wrapped itself in the James Bond mystique – which will guarantee a good box office – but pays no homage to the genre.

It's too bad the creators felt they hand to change such a celebrated formula that has sustained the popularity of Bond series for nearly four decades.

Not a Bond movie

[danbert8 · 1/10 · 25 April 2007]

If you put a 007 on a movie, it should be a Bond movie, not a generic action flick.

What do YOU think of when you think of Bond? I guarantee it won't be in the movie. Let me give you a summary of what Bond signatures were missing from the film.

1. An exciting, explosion filled intro

Nope, in this movie you could have told me it was Fight Club or Kill Bill and I would have believed you. Some punching in a bathroom, that's about it.

2. Naked silhouettes of women in the opening credits and upbeat music

Try bad CGI rendering of card motifs with a horrible score from someone nobody's ever heard of.

3. Sneaking around

You'd think a spy wouldn't go gun blazing into an embassy, but you'd be wrong. After a chase scene taken straight out of The Matrix, he ends up blatantly walking into the embassy shooting, and not even attempting to kill the cameras. He escapes of course, but ends up in the newspaper (some SECRET agent).

4. A sweet car with an awesome chase scene.

Nope, a Ford Focus. Then when he gets an Aston Martin, he gets up to a high speed goes around one corner, and then flips it a billion times.

5. Gadgets!

Nope, Q didn't even make it into this movie. His gadgets are a cell phone and a defibrillator.

6. A maniacal villain

Nope, just some guy who's bad at manipulating the stock market, and he cries blood, which is kinda wussy.

7. A real game of cards

Baccarat was replaced with Texas Hold 'em, because Hollywood had to try and cash in on every popular trend. However, the poker game is drawn out, has little to do with the plot, and is comically predictable. Who'd have though it'd end with everyone going all in, and each having an even more improbably better hand than the last?

8. Bond chicks

Well there was one hot chick in the movie. She was in the movie for 5 minutes, just long enough for her to explain she is married to a bad guy, but not much else. She was tortured and killed. It's a pity because the Bond girl who Bond falls in love with (if that doesn't kill it, nothing will), is obviously not the kind of action filled girl that a secret agent would go for. More like a nun with a side-boob shot.

9. How about some cool weapons?

Wrong again... 90% of everybody uses a pistol. Of course they have infinite ammo, but doesn't everyone these days? There are maybe 2 or 3 assault rifles in the movie, but Bond doesn't use them. He actually makes most of his kills with his bloody fists.

10. Style

Bond is smooth, a connoisseur, and a ladies man. In this movie, he is a monkey in a suit that has no taste at all.

In the end, it was a 5 out of 10 generic action film. But they put a 007 on it, so I give it a 1, only because a slap for Hollywood isn't an option.

what was that about?

[gupor · 1/10 · 19 December 2006]

I am not the biggest James Bond fan, but I have quite enjoyed the franchise. Until now. There are so many things in this film that do not make sense that I don't know where to begin.

First of all I am convinced that Daniel Craig had a hangover one day (one of many judging by his face) and was offered a role in the movie called Casino Royale about which he most certainly thought that it is a sequel to his well made Layer Cake, for which he would be perfect. A successful cocaine dealer working his way to be England's Mafia elite will suit him much better than the British suave top spy. The phrase: "The men want to be him and the women want to be with him" does not match the criteria. I could not help but laugh seeing him emerging from the water with his egg shaped head, the sticking out trans illuminating ears and the straw organized hair. I definitely did not want to be him. Only thing to redirect the concentration of a movie goer to something else was to put him in the gym for six months prior to the shooting of the movie.

Second of all I went to see this movie with a bit of objectivity, listening to critics saying that it is a very well made action movie. I probably went to see the wrong film. The only exiting action sequence is the free-running chase through the streets in Uganda. It involved the free running champion Sebastien Foucan where Craig's stunt was trying his best not to ruin the scene. Otherwise there are no new ideas no new camera angles and most of the scenes have been in the other movies before. The petrol tank truck chase on the airport runway is like a bad copy from the Raiders of the Lost ark. Harrison did a much better job and it was original.

The sequence where Bond is mistaken for a parking attendant is the only ray of bright witty humor Bond is supposed to have and is missing and again it was used in the movies so many times before. (The latest I remember by Vin Diesel in XXX) The whole scene was badly executed and with no follow up logic. Why would security guys run towards the car to find out what has happened when there are security cameras in the security room which was left open for Bond to use the equipment??? Don't even let me start on the car chase. Sorry, what car chase? Bond goes around a couple of curves and unintentionally (when was the last time Bond unintentionally?) wrecks the car. Yes he is a great actor, just watch his facial expression before the stunt man breaks the world record in "car flipping". Unforgettable.

Editing of the poker games in the casino is just amateurish. Cutting the fight scene in half to add a dialog from different surroundings just for the viewer to find out that "Mr. Bond has changed his shirt" is called home made editing.

Making the movie about the beginnings of James Bond earning his "00" status? You start with a black and white scene which really gives you an impression about the times before it all started. Good. You pick a 38 year old actor who looks "used". Bad. You give him no gadgets. Good. Except latest satellite navigation telephones and a high tech heart defibrillator which is a standard accessory of his latest model Aston Martin (by the way Mrs. Broccoli did you really think that invisible car previously was unrealistic?). Bad. Now you have a top spy so you give him an anti terrorist mission. Good. His task is to recover a mere 150 million. Bad. Can someone add this up for me? In conclusion this film is an average movie without any pace or plot, with no new action no leading actor or actress in that matter, no plot and no meaning at all.

Wow... that sure did suck

[brettsmolski · 1/10 · 13 December 2006]

Well, as a fan of earlier 007 movies I was hoping for a restoration of the standard that was set with Sean and Roger. Not only was casino rolaye based off an original Ian Fleming story, but reviews gave praise to the storyline and Daniel Craig portrayal of Bond, and so I went into the movie theatre with high expectations.

These expectations where soon pretty much crushed.

Here are the following things I disliked about the movie:

Daniel Craig's performance did not do 007 justice. He was dull, unwitty, and had absolutely no charisma for such a role.

Craig and Greens chemistry was horrible and the plot was disjointed and did not have the flow of some of the better Bond films. No gadgets, no Q, no decent action sequences.

Shameful product placement. Every agent, terrorist, contact and bond villain whipped out there sony ericsson mobile every chance they got, not to mention several sony vaio laptops and sony blueray disc players. I was actually shocked to see that M was pawning Bond on need for speed carbon on a PS3. Seriously though, they must of shown every model phone they have they even had my K700i (which is probably the worst piece of technology I have ever bought by the way). There was also a crack about what type of watch Bond wears:

BOND: "Did you know that I'm a gaybo?" VESPER: "Really, but the thing I wanted to know is the brand of your watch?" BOND: "OMEGA!!!" Bond turns and smiles at the camera.

Another issue I had with this movie was the amount of screen time Daniel Craig was either nude or partially nude, this was not good as I had lunch just before I watched this. Also, call me old fashioned, but I really don't need to see 007 stripped naked and whipped in the nuts repetitively... I'm just funny like that.

Sooooo, there it is. Please don't go see this movie or you will be the one who cries blood.

For The Love Of god... Stop calling it a 007 movie

[eng-ahmedfayez · 1/10 · 24 November 2006]

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.

Piece of $#&%!!!!

[superhavi · 1/10 · 31 December 2006]

When I walked into the theaters to see this movie I was not expecting much, but, Wow, what a piece of crap!

This movie does in no way meet the high standards set by the other Bond movies. Some say that it is still a good action flick, but hey, which movie did those people watch? Well, I suppose not this movie, or they've maybe fallen asleep during those awfully boring poker scenes. That would explain how some say, that it could go through as a "good" action movie. Because if you cut out that poker crap, you really have some decent action here, but those fifteen minutes can't help the movie.

So, in order to help those fans, that still want to see the movie, to save some money, I'll round up the story now:

Bond kills one guy in a loo, then kills another guy in an office.

Music.

Bond kills a terrorist after chasing him. (Until now roughly ten minutes have passed)

Bond plays Poker, and does some advertising for SONY, OMEGA and FORD. (Now there are only 20 minutes to the end)

The bad guy captures Bond and his Lady, tortures him and gets killed by another bad guy that has not yet been introduced to us.

Bond awakes in a hospital, travels to Venice with his girl. A house collapses, she gets killed and Bond kills the other bad guy that inexplicably seems to be the mastermind.

And I paid money for that!

if it ain't broke - don't fix it!

[zigurusejin · 1/10 · 8 June 2007]

for the first time James Bond has a strong homo-erotic appeal - you see a lot more male than female nakedness, and then there is, of course, the gay sadomasochistic torture scene where the naked "Bond" has his genitals whipped by a male villain. Where most previous Bonds' main strengths were charm and elegance - this one's a testosterone junkie - a gym locker-room wet dream - and not much else! I really don't mind - but it's not what I expect and it doesn't appeal to me! The screenplay is extremely poor and too much of it doesn't work or doesn't make any sense at all - what was supposed to be inside the metal briefcase near the end in Venice - 10 million in cash?! I don't really mind if the plot is unrealistic - but then it should be funny through exaggeration or parody - which this one certainly isn't! Looks like the makers of this one couldn't quite make up their minds as to what they're trying to do - so in the end they left some of the classic elements (crane chase, airport incident) but not enough to call it an 007 film!

Oh my god - unbelievable piece of garbage!

[frank-glinski · 1/10 · 5 January 2007]

Where to start? I don't know.., really! But after the "fabulous" black&white "pre title-sequence" (yawn) the newly styled opener came up I was like "okay, let's leave the theater", we didn't, I suffered through some of the worst, 2+ hours of my poor little life. anyway, I don't want to make this too long because this one doesn't deserve it: I just purely hated it, it's not James it's the Broccoli-Clan trying to stay in the cash-flow, the "we tried to modernize the old Bond"-kind of cash-flow. When I saw the first wigged stuntman on the cranes it was really over - don't put money in this, please - it's garbage - sorry lovers!

This isn't a bond film

[otterman62 · 1/10 · 22 March 2007]

I am a big Bond fan, and this is the first one that I haven't seen at the cinema since Diamonds are Forever in 1971. I saw the DVD yesterday and what a disappointment.

Firstly the good stuff, the locations are original, which is not easy when the franchise has been going round the world for 40+ years, and the photography is excellent ( the cranes against the ocean during the chase, the colours of the sites around lake como)and Judi Dench is always excellent..... and that's pretty much it.

Now the list of moans Daniel Craig is not my idea of Bond, the publicity machine seems to have gone into overdrive about Mr Craig, but nobody that i know who has personally seen the film liked it or him. Craig at times looks more like a down and out rather than a suave agent. He was good in Layer Cake but has zero charisma in this The basic plot (Bond takes on financier for international terrorism) is a good start but has numerous stupid ideas that spoil it for example why would Bond break into M's flat rather than just talk to her in her office? The chronology of the film is all wrong, it clearly shows it's set in 2006 but disregards all his other background, for me this didn't work. the film then drifts off into the overlong card game, with the ridiculous defibrillator scene The villain is rubbish - his "gadget" is an asthma inhaler! my mum could take him out and she's 81! Bond is fooled by everyone, the women, the villain, the bloke who is meant to be helping him, he has to rescued by the bad guys! he gets beaten up loads as well and he gets tortured, and in an embarrassing way, Connery would have bitten through the ropes and killed the guy with the chair! The girls aren't memorable enough some of the lines are pathetic, one is about "if all that was left of you was your hat(?) and your little finger".....embarrassing. Personally I want to go to see escapist Bond, charming the ladies, killing the baddies, always being one step ahead, and always having something witty to say. If I wanted the so called depressing realism I'd look in the mirror. Bottom Line ( no pun intended after the reference to the torture scene)if you didn't have Judi Dench in this, it could pass as just another Bourne/transporter/crank type of average action movie. This is a poor addition to the Bond series. Very disappointing.I hope that they ensure the people who wrote this, don't have anything to do with the next one.

"Casino Royale": An Obituary for The James Bond Film Franchise

[star-blazer · 1/10 · 11 July 2007]

Ever notice how the screenplays, casting, and creative direction of the 007 films produced after "Goldeneye" seem to get worse and worse in terms of art and entertainment values? With "Casino Royale," the franchise hits rock bottom. "Casino Royale" is, objectively, and to date, the worst James Bond film in the history of the 007 film franchise. Why?

1) Story: Based, more or less, on Ian Fleming's original novel, this unskillful adaptation/update is communicated with a disdain for clarity. The audience is fed too little information, too late (or not at all)—about both character motivations as well as the stakes involved in various action sequences—to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what's going on.

2) Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal

• Daniel Craig (Bond). Craig's characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. At one point in the script, Craig's Bond responds to a question with "Do I look like I give a damn?" The answer in "Casino Royale" is overwhelmingly NO. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper "I have no idea what an honest job is." Is this a credible (or creditable) moral statement to hear from a top-level government secret agent? Craig's monotonously stoic performance is by no means compensated for by his (atrocious) line readings: he articulates rarely, mumbles often. As a result of Craig's hollow Bond interpretation, what should have been the film's ultimate impact moment—007's "Bond, James Bond" confrontation with villainous Mr. White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer.

• Eva Green ("Bond Girl," Vesper Lynd). Green's Vesper characterization comes across unwittingly as awkward, unsophisticated. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at "grown-up." What's missing is the mature presence/feminine poise that typifies the best Bond Girl actresses (e.g. Ursula Andress, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Barbara Bach, Maud Adams, Izabella Scorupco, et al). A self-confessed "complicated woman," Green's Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end, and her romance with Craig's Bond is ineptly developed and unconvincingly consummated.

• Judi Dench. Her "M" is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench.

• Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre). In Ian Fleming's novel, Le Chiffre is skillfully characterized as an odd, sinister presence. On screen, Mikkelsen's version of Le Chiffre is unimpressive—an effete villain with a blood-weepy eye, but without the twisted charisma that typifies the best Bond screen adversaries (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Mr. Big, Max Zorin, Janus, et al).

3) Script/dialogue. Both in content and tone, the screenplay—like the novel—overwhelmingly projects malevolence: the power of evil; the stress on the tragic and traumatic; all events taking place in a world where no one can or ought to be trusted. And notice how the script flagrantly undercuts James Bond, the ultimate fictional egoist, with the inclusion of damning "anti-ego" lines thrown at him by M and Vesper. The dialogue is cynical, tasteless, and witless.

4) Original Music: Chris Cornell's unmemorable opening-credits theme song—"You Know My Name"—lacks color, drama, and excitement. David Arnold's surprisingly unremarkable score sounds melodramatic and overly derivative, like a cheap John Barry knock off.

5) Producer infamy/creative bankruptcy: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film's "legendary" producers, amazingly lack the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond's personal/professional timeline on the screen. Instead, they bring 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career--in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond's trademark charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgustingly vulnerable "hero." The producers deliberately emphasize Bond's vulnerability by subjecting him, incredibly, to cardiac arrest(!) as well as a horrific trial of torture (this latter was a rotten, graphic part of Fleming's original novel). Putting obstacles in a purposeful screen hero's path makes for good drama; but these shocking "Casino-Royale" examples are an extremely sick way to challenge a hero and are certainly artistically unworthy of depiction on screen.

Considering all these points, it is clear that "Casino Royale" is neither value-driven art nor uplifting entertainment. The proof is in the picture.

Yet "Casino Royale" is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. But consider:

1. This fact merely indicates the degree of public curiosity about or interest in (a new) James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise's longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (a legacy earned by better films with more inspired creative contributions).

2. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment.

3. High box-office numbers neither reflect nor establish this film's objective merit as art or entertainment.

4. Positive user ratings for this movie on IMDb neither reflect nor establish this film's objective merit as art or entertainment.

WORST Bond & James Bond Movie Ever!!!

[gonwk · 1/10 · 2 December 2006]

Hi folks,

If there was a lower score than 1, I would have Gladly picked that. What a WASTE of my money. This movie has passed beyond awful.

I thought after being totally disappointed in "Die Another Day" Bond movie ... since they casted the Un-talented Halle Berry as Jinx and making her part of Bond Girl history ... was bad enough ... but I guess the Producers, Casting Agents, and Directors are either sleeping at the helm or they figured ... all they have to do slap "007" in front a movie and whole bunch of idiots will rush to the movies and pay good money ... well, from the "Positive" reviews I have read here I guess they have assumed correctly ... because all of us rushed to the movies to see the Latest BOND Movie.

1) Daniel Craig ... he is the WORST Bond ever casted ... the guy DOES NOT look anything close to a Bond. He looks like a phony 007. He over-played his roles ... what is the deal with the guy and his bottom lip ... keep biting it or something to give him the "Sophisticated" Bond look ... GOD, PLEASE ... let this be his LAST FILM as BOND ... he SUCKS!

2) This Bond movie stinked as a whole ... there was hardly any suspense like the good old Bond movies used to have ... also where the heck were the usual Bond Gadgetry ... just a Stupid Tray popping out so he can use the needle to revive him ... what gives!?!?!? , in the old times with less technology Bond had more State-of-the-Art stuff ...

3) I am getting TIRED of "Judi Dench" as "M" ... this woman looks and sounds less and less realistic as the "M" ... OK, OK, so it sounds great with the Women Libs and all the other politically correct B.S. ... but when is Hollywood going to stop making Movies and Theatre as their Pulpit for getting their agenda thru ... please use other Crappy movies to do it with and LEAVE BOND movies alone ... for God's sake. ALSO, To director of this movie ... how Sexy is it to start the movie by zooming in some Old Bra's wrinkly and sagging Breasts ... meaning "M" ... Judi Dench ... who wanted to get a glimpse of her cleavage ... SICKENING .. I almost tossed my burrito on the head of the gal sitting in front of me in the Theatre.

I guess I better stop now ... since I am running out of time.

Bottom of the Line ...

A) Daniel Craig Got to Go! B) New "M" .. please. C) More suspense and Gadgetry for the next Bond.

THANKS!

no James Bond

[escamillio · 1/10 · 12 April 2007]

Thsi film is no James Bond film at all. It misses all the charme, elegance and class of the series and is merely another action film of the kind of Lethal Weapon or 24. It was boring and unsatisfying, and Daniel Craig is just miscast. I am a big fan of the James Bond films, but I was very disappointed in this one. Why were they trying to destroy the myth of James Bond? He never war a cold hearted, brutal killer. Her usually got the girl and not got all of them killed. He was charming and a gentleman of subtle wit. And he was good looking. Somehow all of that was missing in this film. And why on earth was this about Bond besoming 007, if the setting was nowadays? Surely it should have taken place in the 60ies? Whoever tried to reinvent Bond in this film ruined it for me.

going against the grain, i thought it was dreadful!

[cavewoman1948 · 1/10 · 29 December 2006]

one of the all-time worst. daniel craig looks like a washed-up prizefighter--even has the cauliflower ears. and he's so bulked up (muscle-bound) that his head looks too small for his body. plus he has zero charisma. i understand everyone else they wanted turned down the part, and he was last choice. then they had to cast a lot of really ugly people to try to make him look good by comparison (it doesn't work). the plot is senseless and sloppy. spoilers coming: bond is sent to beat le chiffre at poker so he can't pay off his debts and will have to cooperate with mi5 and the cia. but he's already broke! why not skip the poker game and just bring him in right away? then we would have been spared those long, boring poker sessions. and when bond was poisoned in the middle of the match: who poisoned him, and why? it was never mentioned again! lots of going from one country to another for no particular reason except to show off the scenery and add even more time to this interminably dull movie.

Royally disappointing!

[rams_lakers · 1/10 · 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.

James Bond, Not even close

[jerryfr40 · 1/10 · 4 June 2007]

This movie may have been alright for an action movie but it did not even come close to any of it's predecessors. The movie lacked the action, gadgetry, and comedy which has been the trademark of Bond. Thru out this movie Bond makes stupid mistakes and people die because of them. The opening scene was quite good but that was the high point of the movie. It fails to ever achieve that height again. Several times near the end you are led to believe your torture is over only to have it drug out even further. While there are twists the trademark action scenes are nearly non existent. One in the beginning and one near the end. If you are a Bond fan from the days of Connery and Moore you will be terribly disappointed. If you have never seen a Bond movie you may be satisfied with this effort.

tough S.it

[valery_o8-1 · 1/10 · 26 December 2006]

If you're totally humorless and into endless testosterone action-scenes, if you were never interested in Q's new gadgets, in futuristic gear and tongue-in-cheek charm, but always thought, that 007 should be more like a bland no-nonsense killer and if you want to see a James Bond, who himself looks like one of the dead bodies of Gunther v. Hagens strange exhibition, which is featured here - among several Sony-Ericsson Phones, the new ugly Ford and other dispensable and uninteresting products -

THEN GO SEE CASINO ROYALE AND PRAISE JEREMY CRAIG for clenching his jaws 144 long minutes.

New Bond - it's awful !

[jm-116 · 1/10 · 25 November 2006]

Oh my god - how bad is the new bond film

It's quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen - I truly wanted to leave the cinema.

I should of left during the opening credits - where were the naked female silhouettes ? The bond song ain't great either, despite having Chris Cornell singing it (ex Soundgarden and Audioslave)

OK I'll be fair - the first 80 mins are pretty good - then it's seems that the exec producer took over the script writing and decided to write another film and a lame (so very lame) love interest - obviously deciding that they had to make some type of chick flick appeal. The story just goes totally off track - it's as 30mins of the film was meant to have been left on the cutting room floor, but somehow it stayed in. And the love interest, was so much better done in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"

Craig is good (best bond for a long time) but the supporting cast is really poor. Eva Green is dreadful how did she get cast ? I've never got Judy Dench as M - wasn't a good time to replace her with someone that really could fill the shoes of Bernard Lee (the original M)

Continuity was pretty bad and some really slack filming eg it's pouring with rain but it's bright sunshine (happens twice in the film) The jungle scene is shot on the backlot at pinewood - complete with Silver birch trees!

Just how difficult can it be to make a good bond film !!

7.9 my a**e

[jjlwilliams · 1/10 · 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).

The Worst Bond Movie Ever

[pejon-1 · 1/10 · 24 November 2006]

First of all this is a two and a half hour sony commercial. Bond is weak, The movie is boring. I wanted to leave several times. The plot is lossy and the emotional chit chat totally against bond character. The new bond is unappealing and his eyes are digitally enhanced. Even the special effects are not what they used to be. We come to expect more from bond, bond is not some lame superhero with a darker troubled side.

For me Sony has totally ruined bond. One cant only hope this is the last we see of this new bond. A sad day for bond fans everywhere. This really even makes me wish they bring back pierce brosnan. Also the opening scene tough arguably the best scene in the movie is a lot less dramatic the normal for bond.

Nightmare for James Bond

[marinehenry · 1/10 · 18 December 2006]

Stop it!!!! I've watched all 20 James Bond Movies. For each one, I have watched more than 20 times. Even there are actors like George Lazenby, it still fits the Bond formula. But this one, Hell, No. No matter what kind storyline we have, we gotta look into the actor who plays Bond. Daniel Craig??? No way! I'd rather have Hugh Jackman, Clive Owan, OR Jason Connery, son of Sean, who also played Ian Flemming in SPYMAKER(1990) and Casablanca Express (1989), Bullet to Beijing (1997). Even Tom Cruise can do better than this Mr. Craig. Now, the storyline. When we talk about James Bond, we do not want a realistic tough guy. We want a legendary suave spy. Girls, Violence, Gadgetry. It gotta follow the certain formula even though we know its not for real. Pre-Title sequence, then the opening, debriefing, Q-Branch, lovely babes, easily turn the girl who works for Bad guy working for Bond. Then the girl is killed. Afterwards, Bond get the job done with style. Thats James Bond Movie. This Casino Royale is just a 2nd Rate action movie, like Dolph's upcoming movie DIAMOND DOG.

Bond Reboot

[sohmflooring · 1/10 · 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.

No Bond

[zizu33 · 1/10 · 7 December 2006]

If someone saw in this movie "Bond , James Bond" please let me know...what I saw was RAMBO 10 or maybe "Astalavista baby" , this guy "Bond" look more like a boxer more than a secret agent.

No really !?! who vote 10 really think that was a Bond movie? what kind of special equipment he have? kids have more gadgets today then him...and please don't comment my English...this does't make the difference , I saw the movie with my own eyes.

Let's talk about script...all movie was more like a poker game ...oooh was exactly this , even the title say that Casino...

Since when secret services play poker with a terrorist ? Was much easy to kill him , but if they don't play poker we don't have a movie about POKER .

Life it's gambling !

BAD "BOND" MOVIE!

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

[eltonpa15934 · 1/10 · 18 March 2007]

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.

James Bond is officially *DEAD*

[MSane · 1/10 · 3 December 2006]

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.