Casino Royale (2006) Poster

(2006)

User Reviews

Review this title
2,319 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
The best Bond i have ever seen, Daniel Craig's first best Bond 007 my third favorite
ivo-cobra825 November 2017
Casino Royale (2006) is without doubt one of the best Ian Fleming's James Bond. This is the real film, the real Bond film unlike lackluster sh**y Die Another Day stupid movie! I have enjoyed this film so damn much! I love this film to death, from action sequence to actors and the plot story I love it. The film is very realistic serious well portrayed it has no jokes. It is my favorite because it is action, action, action and even more action. Casino Royale (2006) is the twenty-first spy film in the Eon Productions James Bond film series, and is the third screen adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1953 novel of the same name.

I make no apologies for believing that Daniel Craig really did become the closest thing we've seen to IAN FLEMING's James Bond. I'm a hard-core James Bond fan I love a lot of the films that over 50 years were made. Casino Royale is simply my third favorite James Bond film it is in my top 10 favorite James Bond films. This movie is interesting totally mind-blowing. It is highly entertaining, espionage with a lot of action sequence. Not boring or lame but believable well acted.

After lackluster fiasco and disaster Die Another Day (2002) producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli fired actor Pierce Brosnan because he wanted too much money to shoot a fifth Bond movie, and producers had already decided to reboot the long-running spy saga with a grittier approach. Daniel Craig ultimately took over the role for 2006's Casino Royale and has gone on to achieve success as arguably the most popular 007 since the days of Sean Connery.

Daniel Craig is fantastic as new James Bond tough I love Pierce Brosnan this is the real deal. Actress Samantha Bond also left James Bond saga after 4 movies since Brosnan was fired and this movie did not used Miss Moneypenny.

Eva Green as the new Bond's girl Vesper Lynd did an excellent performance and a fine job playing James Bond's first true love. Green and Craig have electric chemistry on screen together. Vesper's character seems ambiguous, impudent and complicated. One night-slumped in the shower fully clothed, radiating inner beauty-her quiet look is capable to melt Bond's cold heart and free his doubtful mind. In another, she disconcerts him with her pretty 'Algerian love knot.

Judi Dench as M is always awesome and she did a fantastic well done job. In GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and this movie she did a well done excellent job. I love the actress and I had a blast watching her on screen.

Mads Mikkelsen is the villain banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tries to get rich in supplying funds for terrorists. The actor did incredible job as the main villain and I really absolutely loved his performance.

Jeffrey Wright plays the new undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter 'bleeding chips at the poker tournament:' and Giancarlo Giannini plays the 'contact' Mathis.

The Italian actress Caterina Murino plays Solange who reveals her sexy side as the frustrated woman so upset in her marriage.

Armed with a license to kill, Secret Agent James Bond sets out on his first mission as 007, and must defeat a private banker to terrorists in a high stakes game of poker at Casino Royale, Montenegro, but things are not what they seem.

Bond (Daniel Craig) is chasing a terrorist bomber Mollaka (Sebastien Foucan) who was contracted by terrorist organization to make and sell a bomb. While Bond chases him he has to jump on a several sky cranes and on a building to continue the chase. Real stunt performance from stunt man and actor Daniel Craig. He chases Mollaka to embassy in Madagascar and shots him and shoots a nearby gas tank makes a huge explosion and flees with Mollaka's bag, he finds his cell phone with text message the word "ELLIPSIS."

A trail leads Bond to Nassau, Bahamas to Alex Dmitrios (Simon Abkarian) in which Bond seduces his wife Solange and find's out he goes to Miami USA. Bond pursues Dmitrios to Miami airport kills Dmitrios with a knife in self defense tracks down another bomber.

Bond stops the terrorist and takes the bomb away from the airplane. Saves all the passengers and the plane. Great tanker truck chase on the airport. Great action sequence Bond saves over 200 lives in this movie that is why I love it so much. Bond stops the tanker before hitting the plane with all the gas and the bomb attached to it and he attaches bomb on a terrorist. Excellent action sequence!

Bond has to fight Le Chiffre in high poker game with Felix Leiter. Bond kill's two black men in which Le Chiffre lost their money and single handle with fists kill's them. Bond is such a bad-ass in this movie. Le Chiffre and his blond girl Valenka (Ivana Milicevic) poison Bond's martini with digitalis, causing Bond to suffer severe tachycardia. Bond runs to his car for defibrillator but passes out. Vesper Lynd comes and save's his life. Bond comes back in to Casino finishes the game and beats Le Chiffre at the game. Bond drives Aston Martin DBS great action sequence.

10/10 This movie is directed by Martin Campbell who directed GoldenEye my all time favorite Pierce Brosnan 007 film. Casino Royale (2006) is my third favorite film in the Bond 007 saga and I love this movie to death! I love it so damn much!
86 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
One of the best Bond movies in years
hill10788 November 2006
I saw this at a cast and crew screening in London last weekend: I'm not a huge Bond fan, but I do enjoy them on a purely popcorn level and this was definitely one of the best in recent memory. The tone is much edgier and nastier than the Brosnan movies, harking back more to Dr. No or For Your Eyes Only. The action sequences are brilliantly shot and edited for maximum impact and are some of the best out of any Bond movie. Martin Campbell, who also made 'Goldeneye', was an excellent choice and, for me, is one of the best Bond directors. What gives this the lead over recent Bonds is the more realistic feel: the exotic locales, fast cars, spectacular action, beautiful women and many other Bond hallmarks are all here but gone is the campy tone that marred, say, Die Another Day. Yes, the whole franchise is based on an entirely ridiculous and cartoonish notion but the more serious and harder-edged tone works really well here. In this context, Daniel Craig gives an excellent performance as Bond. I'll be the first to admit that I raised an eyebrow when I heard he was cast but he really makes it his own. It's hard to say whether he's better than any of the other Bonds: Connery and Brosnan felt right for the style of Bond movies they were in. Here, as suits the overall tone of the film, Bond is much more of a sadist, a cold-hearted killer with very little sense of empathy and Craig, with his piercing eyes, suits the role very well. He's charming and funny when required and totally convincing in the action sequences. The violence is less cartoon-like and flippant, too, with every punch, kick and shooting looking like they really hurt. Also, the story is just much more engaging than many a Bond film; the script's not going to win awards but it's consistently inventive and intriguing. Whilst the film has enough of it's fair share of action, the emphasis is equally on character and storyline and less on gadgets and sheer implausibility. When there isn't a huge action sequence happening, you don't miss it: the film's longest set-piece, the poker game at the Casino Royale, is as (or not more) gripping and entertaining than any of the chases and shoot-outs. The only minor gripes that I have are a slightly too long running time: the film drags a wee bit towards the end and, although it helps the tone of the film, we don't hear enough of the Bond theme tune! However, great directing and performances from everyone involved, along with Phil Meheux's excellent cinematography, Peter Lamont's as ever superb production design and all the other top-notch craft and technical departments make 'Casino Royale' a classy and very enjoyable night out at the movies.
843 out of 1,143 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
"Do I look like I give a damn?"
Nazi_Fighter_David5 January 2009
Anyone who has followed the James Bond series over the last four decades knows that the new Bond has changed... In "Casino Royale," 007 do not identify himself with the classic words, "Bond. James Bond," and instead of playing Chemin-de-Fer or Craps, he plays Poker and he doesn't care whether his vodka martinis are shaken or stirred nor he drinks a Smirnoff vodka, or a five-star Hennessey, or a Dom Pérignon'52... He never pauses to take a finger of Caviar… He never enjoys a good cigar and is less preoccupied with matters of sex…

But he is a more trained Bond, a cold-hearted killer improvising, modifying, and overcoming, uttering to M in one decisive moment his most significant line, "So you want me to be half monk, half hit-man!"

In taking the part, Daniel Craig completely inhabited the character of the super agent 007… There is something empathetic about him and something human…He so lets you in behind his blue eyes and into his emotional life…

His opponent is the villain banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tries to get rich in supplying funds for terrorists… To continue doing so, Le Chiffre wants to win back his losses in a no-limit showdown Poker game with $115,000,000 in chips at Casino Royale in Montenegro…

Ivana Milicevic plays Le Chiffre's Bosnian bodyguard who nearly eliminates our hero… Valenka is harmful but not pure evil as her boss…

Simon Abkarian is the middleman Alex Dimitrios involved with Le Chiffre, who knew where to put his hands on weapons and people who could use them… He works with anyone who has money…

The Italian actress Caterina Murino (Solange) reveals her sexy side as the frustrated woman so upset in her marriage…

Jeffrey Wright plays the undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter 'bleeding chips at the poker tournament;' and Giancarlo Giannini plays the 'contact' Mathis…

Eva Green is Bond's love interest Vesper Lynd… Green and Craig have electric chemistry on screen together… Vesper's character seems ambiguous, impudent and complicated… One night—slumped in the shower fully clothed, radiating inner beauty—her quiet look is capable to melt Bond's cold heart and free his doubtful mind… In another, she disconcerts him with her pretty 'Algerian love knot.'

"Casino Royale" lacks the fundamental technology exhibition which plays an important part in any Bond films... The traditional "James Bond Gun Barrel Sequence" and the "James Bond Theme" disappeared… The only thin bit of continuity is Judi Dench's fifth return as the cool, scheming chief Lady M…

Directed by Martin Campbell, the movie has it all: spectacular locations from Prague, London, Miami and Nassau— and amazing actions involving the superb Aston Martin DB5 coupe in a high-speed mountain chase; a rush to stop a fuel tanker at Miami Airport; a combat with an Ugandan terrorist; a pursue in a four-wheel bulldozer; a breathless foot chase across highest cranes; and an unexpected climax in one of the buildings on the canals of Venice…
29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
For The First Time...
philip-988 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Now look, I'm a hard-core James Bond fan. Some might say a purist.I make no apologies for believing that Timothy Dalton is the closest thing we've seen to IAN FLEMING's James Bond.

Last night I saw Casino Royale.

This is, for the first time, the truest interpretation of the character we have ever seen.

This film is amazing. Totally mind-blowing. From the black and white pre-titles, to arguably the best titles sequence ever. From the African free-running chase to the beautiful interiors of London. From Judi Dench's harassed M, to the super cool Le Chiffre. From the stone-cold government killer, to the heart broken lover.

Style and sophistication are in abundance.

And I love it.

Lancelot Narayan DVD Producer The Lip Sync Group
915 out of 1,285 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The best Bond? No. The best since the 60s? Yes!
cliveowensucks12 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First off, the negative. Casino Royale is both too long and too short. Like OHMSS, there are moments when the running time feels its length and others where you think something's missing because they suddenly tried to trim the running time by not shooting bits. At times you'd be grateful for a little bit of exposition BEFORE a couple of the big action scenes rather than after. And some of the script has some lines as subtle as a car crash that stink of Paul Haggis' brand of heavy handedness. The big finale is just a bit too much, as if they're afraid not to destroy some big building again because that's what they always do.

Having got that out of the way, none of that matters that much because this is the best Bond since George Lazenby thought he had all the time in the world. It's got a strong plot for once and makes it even stronger by showing us where Bond came from and how he smoothed away some of the rough edges. And the edges are brutally rough here. The killings are nasty and the aftermath has to be dealt with in a way Bonds have never done before.

The real ace in the hand is Craig. He doesn't have Connery's raw star quality, but he's easily the best actor to have played the part. I don't know if the film was shot in sequence but for the only time since OHMSS you get a sense of Bond changing throughout the film as his cockiness becomes confidence and his brutality becomes cold efficiency. He starts off unlikeable but human and gradually picks up the Bond traits we know until he becomes more likable but just a little less human. It's an interesting journey and Craig is up to it. It's not just his delivery, it's also his body language. Even his fighting style changes as he adapts.

Physically he's the most in your face Bond since Lazenby and the action scenes look brutal for once. Even the not very likely free running chase is spectacular but believable because you get the idea that this really is kill or be killed stuff. It's got a real feel of danger to it that hasn't been seen in the series in years. Only the torture scene feels like it's holding back (it's almost as tastefully done as the old TV version) but that's probably fear of the censors.

You'll come out of this one not just thinking that Daniel Craig IS James Bond, but that no-one has ever played him before. Let's all hope EON don't lose their nerve with Bond 22 and bring back the sci-fi stuff and gadgets, because this could be a real new beginning! See it and you'll believe it.
492 out of 700 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Bond isn't just back, he's at the top of his game
Murph McManus9 November 2006
James Bond is back and he is alive and well. Any questions about Daniel Craig's worthiness are thrown out almost immediately as we are handed a film filled to the brim with exquisite action and explosive emotion. I squirmed in my seat with delight as I have not done since I was a child. What "Batman Begins" did for that franchise, "Casino Royale" does, and more, for Bond. For a while it seemed that he might not be able to well exist outside the confines of the cold war, but here we are given an entirely modern Bond with enough nods to the original that we can't be too upset. Maybe it's because this is the last novel yet to be filmed in the traditional Bond manner and it is Ian Fleming who has stolen our hearts not this incarnation of the super spy. However I like to think that someone actually just got their act together and concentrated on the film itself as opposed to who they could get the most product placement money out of. Congratulations. James Bond will live on for at least one more generation, and maybe forever. Great set pieces and one of the best chase sequences not involving cars ever put on screen, blended with beautiful locations and even more lovely women add up to the perfect cocktail with the twisting story line acting as the lemon peel in the martini, holding it all together. Many will come out saying that this is the best Bond film ever and I can not rightly say they are wrong at this point. Only time will tell that tale. However every fan can be assured that this ranks amongst the very upper crust of Bond movies, and Craig is no Lazenby. He lends a harsh wit and a thuggish charm to the character and by the end he's no longer the new guy, he is Bond, James Bond. A masterpiece of popular film-making and the movie we have been waiting for all year. See it early and often as it is sure not to diminish upon reviewing.
656 out of 947 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A Great Actor As Bond
giorgiosurbani7 January 2007
What a difference a great actor makes. Daniel Craig is superb as James Bond and parting from that point everything in it is enjoyable, frightening, thrilling just because we're with him. He conquered us from the word go. The initial chase is one of the best in film history and as soon as we get to know this new incarnation of the iconic Ian Fleming character, we're hooked. He's virile but there is room for ambiguity. He's elegant but as, the sensational Eva Green, points out is more acquired than inherited. More working class than even Sean Connery and that works wonders for Mr Bond. The script is more compact and organic. The locations are breathtaking and what else I can say? The series have been reinvigorated, rejuvenated and in one single stroke have secured that this franchise will live forever. A note to Barbara Broccoli, the producer, your father would be so proud. Congratulations!
282 out of 405 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Daniel Craig you are here to stay!
nikhilvarma8912 November 2006
This is among the best bond movies! You have to see it.

After all the controversy and comments on Daniel Craig's potential as an actor and doubts over him playing Bond...i'd say forget it and be enthralled by the new BOND! He's here to stay.

He has that natural feeling about him when you see him on the screen as Bond, that attitude, style, confidence matched only by Sean COnnery. The movie as a whole is extremely entertaining and exciting.The acting is awesome Eva Green actually does a great job and has really improved her acting from the last time i saw her (in kingdom of heaven), but then this is a totally different movie.

There's a lot of action mixed with great story which i am sure will please the true Bond fan.

Please go and watch this because you will regret if you don't, forget the past this is the New Bond.

9/10
740 out of 1,095 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Welcome back...
Shanus11 November 2006
There is only one movie franchise that has twisted, turned and reinvented itself on so many occasions...

007 has unfortunately dwindled more than it has bedazzled over the last decades but I am relieved to see that Martin Campbell has put the edge back into the Bond series.

The originally unpopular Craig grinds through this action packed feature with ease and in my opinion proves all of his doubters (including me) very very wrong..

At last we have another true Bond.. Sharp, sophisticated and as tough as nails... And perhaps correctly more shaken than stirred.

Welcome back 007... Welcome back.
666 out of 998 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
"Millenium" series James Bond - top-of-the-line!
winner5522 November 2006
In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing; "Thunderball" came close, but that was because Fleming developed the story on commission for the film. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had the book's plot pretty down pat, and was made in a kind of 'grand adventure' style, but of course it suffered from the choice of Lazenby - a professional model, not an actor - as Bond. "The Living Daylights" showed the producers' interest in returning to the roots, but Dalton was uncomfortable playing Bond, and uncomfortable with the wisecracks which had become part of the character's schtick - and which were really badly written for the Dalton films. "Goldeneye" was admirable attempt to update the Fleming milieu for the end of the Cold War, but left the character himself as yet without an 'updated' definition.

The decision to make a 21st Century version of Fleming's first Bond novel - and, beyond the update, to remain true to the novel, sans comic patter, sans sci-fi techno-schtick, sans major rewrite of the basic plot - promised to present Bond fans of all ages with a direct challenge. Do we want the hard-boiled spy Fleming first envisioned - patterned after Chandler's Philip Marlowe and W. Somerset Maughm's Ashenden ("or: The British Agent")? Or would we really rather have the suave stand-up comedian and Playboy magazine contributor introduced by Broccoli, Maibaum, Young, and company, in the second Connery film, "From Russia With Love"?

Well, the votes are still being tallied on that.

As someone who came to Bond reading "Goldfinger" at the tender age of twelve (the phrase "round, firm, pointed breasts" has been an inspiration to me since), the closer the films came to the sense of the novels, the happier I was.

So of course, this version of Bond is a joyous surprise for me - my youthful daydreams have been vindicated and at last fully satisfied. There are indeed elements added to the plot, but they are completely congruent with it. There is the use of current technology, but no techno-schtick - i.e., no Q. and no "gadgets". There are the luscious Bond babes (2 - the minimum Bond requirement), but there is no attempt to reduce them to photogenic sex-toys.

Fleming's plot actually requires the film's addition of some heavy action sequences (all done very snappy, with a brutally realistic edge), because the novel is very claustrophobic; the original TV version of the story (1955, with Barry Nelson as 'Jimmy Bond'), only used three indoor sets, because it could - except for the car chase and an attempted bombing at an outdoor café, Fleming's novel took place almost entirely within Bond's hotel suite and the gaming room. The film's opening this novel out to the world is actually quite welcome, and does not affect the central plot or its theme.

The character of Bond presented in this film may disappoint followers of the original films, but the news is, this is FLEMING's Bond - an orphan uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.

The other problem some general viewers may have is the level of violence in the film; having determined to film the novel realistically, director Martin Campbell has decided to ditch the 'B-movie' violence of most of the earlier films, and present us the violence with a hard 'British neo-noir' edge to it. Given the romantic plot twist toward the end, this would be a perfect date movie - except that the violence left some of the female viewers in the theater I attended clearly unsettled. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is part of the gestalt of the film's experience.

Cambell's direction is very good; the writing is crisp; production values are very high; the photography is stunning. Some of the stunt work is truly remarkable, worthy competition for Jackie Chan. The acting is rock-solid and believable for these characters. There is plenty of muscle for the action-film fan, and some real brains for the more general viewer to ponder later.

This film is best viewed with minimal reliance on knowledge of the previous series. In fact, it functions perfectly well as a 'one-off', a film without a series.

But of course, the ending invites a sequel. In Godzilla terms, Connery and Moore having given us the 'showa' Bond, Dalton and Brosnan the "Heisei" Bond, we now have the "Millenium" series James Bond - not a prequel nor even a 'reboot', but, really, an entirely new series about the same character. It is probably too much to hope for, but maybe they can make the sequels just as good as this.

As a genre film it never quite lifts above its genre; so normally I would only give it "nine stars" as a film.

However, as a film within its genre, it is top-of-the-line - so it gets a ten.
196 out of 283 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
blonde bond bombshell
the_mad-scientist14 November 2006
Well certain people thought Daniel Craig could not pull it off, but he has and with style and a cold steel edge, not seen since Sean Connery.

This is proper action hero stuff, but he actually looks like if he wanted to he could kill you.

With an opening sequence that will stop you from blinking for 20 minutes.

The film is class, from the cinematography, to the three dimensional villains, and Bond's rapid learning curve.

Like Dr No, you see a killer, just he is on our side.

Don't read reviews, just go and see it, and tell your friends what you thought, you won't be disappointed.
464 out of 716 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Bond with a touch of the the Bourne supremacy
aravindh_v12 November 2006
I saw this at a special premiere and i was amazed. having never been a Bond fan i wasn't really expecting much from this. After watching Brosnans invisible car in the previous incarnation I thought it could only get worse. How wrong was I! this film is gritty and sharp. the dialogue is sharp and well thought out with Daniel Craig being the DEFINITIVE Bond. He exudes confidant menace. They have gone back to basics with this Bond ie character and dialogue driven and not thankfully gadget driven. Not only is it the best bond film out so far its one of the years best films out. They have borrowed some elements from the Bourne series of films which is long overdue on the franchise, more realistic fight sequences and with Daniel Craig actually looking like a physically capable man instead of the middle aged paunch of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan who both quite frankly couldn't beat up a Ritz cracker.
447 out of 761 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Neither shaken nor stirred
tieman6414 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"The film returns to "realism" and a more credible plot, with less fantasy and gratuitous humour." – The Guardian (on "The Living Daylights" – the first Bond movie to star Timothy Dalton)

Whenever the Bond franchise is reset and a new actor is brought in, the Bond publicity machine claims that this new entry will "go in new directions", "be different", "edgier", "more violent", "more realistic" etc. And every time audiences are conned, if only for a couple "new" installments, until they realise that these films don't actually change, they just absorb whatever film-making trends are currently in vogue.

Bond was always a disposable product. With no character history and a personality distilled to a series of tics, he epitomises cinema as throwaway commodity. The most commercially successful movie hero and franchise in history, the Bond films are not only rife with "product placements", but they themselves function as a kind of highly sophisticated advertisement for the James Bond brand. They must simultaneously invoke tradition and the promise of something new, yet as that newness is always bound to tradition, you never actually get anything new, just variations of the same old thing, the franchise continually destroying its past even as it persistently resurrects it. Bond is about bondage in more ways than one.

Bond was always about unrealistic fantasies of Western power, the films (including "Casino Royale") all depicting beautiful people behaving violently in a cold and "rational" fashion whilst extravagantly consuming the best materials society can provide in the form of expensive yachts, cars, food and hotels. Little thought is ever given to emotional connection, spirituality or non-dominating forms of conflict resolution, the dominant social paradigm is always vindicated and reasserted, Bond always wins (often through highly unethical means), all the women he seeks are conquered, the "traitorous woman" is always killed and a Victorian mentality of society being strictly hierarchical, mechanistic and controlled from the top by an inherited nobility, is always served up.

And of course the narrative structures of all the Bond movies are the same: we have the titillative pre-story action sequence, the revelation of the mission, the journey to the exotic location, the meeting with the first woman, the introduction of the sub villain, the mid point action sequences, the introduction of the second woman, the capture of Bond by the central villain, the escape of Bond and the climactic action sequence, often in which the bad guy is killed. Added to this mix is the usual sprinkling of black tie functions, high stakes gambles, card games, exotic locations, gun-play, dangerous car chases etc.

And as most "action movies" are reliant on the technology and conventions of the time in which they were made, and as the "pace" of these films is constantly increasing, most Bond films have a shelf life of about 3 years, each film looking dated by the time the other arrives.

Of course most action movies adhere to this formula (the Indiana Jones flicks follow it to a tee) - this is because our cultural narrative structure is shaped strongly around the pattern of the male sexual experience (setup, building tension, climax, then resolution) - but the Bond movies have been religiously following their own template and replicating whole sequences for almost six decades. This is why EON Productions, the company which produces the Bond movies, typically hires hack directors and doesn't let auteurs go near the series: no one is allowed to fiddle with the Bond ingredients. No one. ("Quantum of Solace" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" are, thus far, the closest the series has come to an auteur; unsurprisingly, the masses hated both)

Midway in this film a character asks Bond if he'd like his drink "Shaken or stirred?" Bond replies "Do I look like I give a damn?" as though he's suddenly treading brave new narrative terrain. In reality, such little "self-aware gimmicks" (which are scattered throughout "Casino Royale") are no more "edgy" than George Lazenby breaking the third wall and saying "this never happened to the other fellow". Once you realise these movies have never been shaken, there becomes nothing in them to really cause a stir.

6/10 – A clichéd film with an overlong final act and an underused Eva Green. The film has several action sequences, all derivative. The "free running" sequences are low rent versions of "Ong Bak" and "District 13", Bond's bathroom brawl recalls "True Lies", the airport chase seems like a deleted scene from the original "Die Hard" trilogy, whilst the "African Base standoff" at the start of the film is identical to the "Russian Base standoff" at the start of "Goldeneye" (same director, too). Incidentally, the director of this film, Martin Campbell, "rebooted" Bond in the early 90s with "Goldeneye", just as director Guy Hamilton twice "rebooted" Bond in the 60s and 70s.

Worth one viewing.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An impressively dark, engaging and exciting entry in the Bond series – just what it needed after Die Another Day
bob the moo11 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.
23 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
"Bordello Royale"
sandy-kopi19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
290 out of 522 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Excellent prequel to the series
lefrelonvert10 November 2006
Though it doesn't care too much about the series' continuity (it's supposed to be Bond's first mission as a 00 agent, but it takes place after the Cold war and Judi Dench is already M), "Casino Royale" is a great re-creation of the series. Cool action, great thrills and a more humane Bond more than make up for the purported lack of gadgets. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a rough secret who only gradually acquires the class and cold demeanor we all know and love. He makes mistakes in the course of his mission, but that makes him even more of a hero. Although I found it hard at first to cope with Craig's looks, he is more than suitable as the character. Bond is portrayed as a man with flaws and weaknesses, which makes him look even stronger. The story is not your usual Bond plot and relies more on classical thrills than technology, though the action is extremely hard-boiled. Kudos to the creepy Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre and Eva Green as Vesper Lynd for creating remarkably believable characters. A definite must-see for Bond fans : it should reconcile at last Ian Fleming aficionados and fans of the film series !
312 out of 569 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Wow... that sure did suck
Time Burglar13 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
162 out of 288 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A Royale without cheese.
Shawn Watson18 November 2006
Casino Royale is a major step-up from the flamboyant Die Another Day. Pierce Brosnan has been replaced by a young-ish Daniel Craig, there is no Q, no campy gadgets, no silly naked women silhouettes in the opening credits, no world-dominating super-colossus villains, no Miss Funnyfanny (or whatever), and no silly one-liners after killing bad guys. Basically everything that can date Bond film very quickly is gone. I never expected international espionage to look the way it has in past few Bond outings and I'm glad someone had the balls to go back to the hard-edged nature of the series, last seen in Licence to Kill.

The longest Bond movie so far, at 145 minutes, but it breezes by even though it reigns in on the normally excessive action scenes and depicts spying a more 'mundane' and 'realistic' manner (or at least as true as the series has been so far). But the one-thing that bugs me about action movies, particularly the Bond franchise, is that they are, most of the time, childish male fantasies with an indestructible hero who has fun shooting up the place and beds beautiful women. I would like something new for a change but Casino Royale does have Bond get hurt and go through more pain than he has previously.

Daniel Craig got a lot of hassle over his casting as Bond but not only does he have his youth as an advantage (he's the first 30-something to be cast in the role since Lazenby), he's also pretty damn trim, has the intensity Brosnan lacked and is surprisingly loose in a role that usually requires actors to be stiff and unemotional. It's also good to a fresh face in the role and who cares if he is blonde? Or the shortest actor to play him so far? I would have preferred that composer David Arnold went too. They didn't seem to be holding back on the amount of regular production team members who got axed. Even Vic Armstrong didn't return. I've never liked Arnold's work on the movies and I hate to think of it as something that's now exclusively HIS baby.

Unfortunately, as good as this fresh start to the franchise was, all of the goodwill that director Martin Campbell earned was completely undone by the follow-up Quantum of Solace, which is not only the worst Bond film so far, but one of the worst action films, and one of the worst films overall, that I have ever seen.

If Craig and Co. ever get around to making another, they've got a LOT to make up for.
174 out of 311 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A matter of (BAD) taste
robell6 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.
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
"Casino Royale": An Obituary for The James Bond Film Franchise
star-blazer11 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
74 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
what was that about?
gupor19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
124 out of 221 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Royally disappointing!
rams_lakers26 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.
26 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Piece of $#&%!!!!
superhavi31 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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!
114 out of 203 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What the bloody hell was this?
Lord_of_TERROR4 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film is terrible. The plot barely makes sense, Daniel Craig pouts far more than any human (let alone man) should, there's no good action scenes, the best sequence of the movie looks like an extended Volvo ad and the film has a 45 minute poker sequence in the middle that's no better than Celebrity Poker off the TV, except of course when i watch it on TV i don't know who's going to win. This film was a huge let down. It was hard to imagine that I would look back on the Pierce Brosnan days with fond memories but somehow the makers of this latest debacle have achieved it. But worst of all, worse than the wooden dialogue and bizarre attempt at love story, worse than all that was that there was not a single bad guy worth his salt in the whole movie. If the world doesn't have super villains it surely doesn't need super spies either.
31 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
A great Bond film? Maybe if you hate the other twenty
mightywillg-130 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Let's start by saying my three star rating of this film is an act of generosity on my part, considering it isn't a bad action film, has some exciting sequences and thrilling moments. But though Bond has been synonymous with action for over forty years, the Bond movies have always been about more than that, namely... fun. This film was almost completely devoid of any fun whatsoever, leaving me with the feeling if you can't get a little fun from a Bond film any more, what the hell kinda world are we living in?! I wasn't as sceptical of Daniel Craig as lots of people seemed to be, knowing he is a fine actor, but his total lack of charisma, humour and charm left me hating his guts. Now people will claim "but this is the closest to Ian Flemings original version of Bond that we've yet seen, and that makes him a good Bond, maybe even the best." But it's always been a clear and obvious fact that the Bond films have never had much in common with Flemming's novels except for the titles, yet it has still become one of the most beloved film franchises of all time; Obviously not beloved enough to stop them taking over forty years of tradition and mythology (the one liners, the gadgets, the over-the-top villains and their over-the-top deaths)and flushing it all down the friggin' toilet! Yes, Die Another Day was a step too far in making things over the top - an invisible car being just one example - but that's no reason to just scrap the whole franchise in terms of what it represents.

Like I said, Bond films SHOULD be about having fun, not leaving the cinema feeling horribly depressed and miserable. A James Bond who stares questioningly at himself in the mirror after killing a bad guy, in a "what am I turning into" kinda way?! Screw that! Bond should kill a guy, make a glib joke, then look for the next scumbag that needs killin'. A Bond who falls in love then cries his eyes out when she dies? Even George Lazenby took the same thing with a little subtle dignity, and they'd just got married! And please, consider this - can you imagine Roger Moore, Connery, or even Dalton, strapped to a chair naked, getting their balls smashed to pieces, screaming their head off like a lunatic? No, because that... is... NOT... FUN!!!

There was a brief glimmer of hope when Craig returns from the near death poisoning experience to the poker table and says "sorry about that, that last hand nearly killed me." I thought, "hooray, James Bond actually made a joke! Only took him a f***ing HOUR!!!!" By the time the end credits start to roll and the Monty Norman theme finally starts to play, it almost seems like a cruel joke of some kind, so far removed is the preceding 140 minutes from what the world has come to recognise as true Bond. Yet, everyone seems to love it, people the world over lapping Casino Royale up like cream from a spy's battered testicles. I guess fun is officially dead, along with the Bond we all grew up with. I certainly shall miss him.
72 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews