Casino Royale (2006) Poster

(2006)

User Reviews

Review this title
2,614 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel. Got it?
leonardodaftson9 December 2021
I distinctly remember the collective groan from the James Bond fan base back in the mid 2000's when the announcement came that Daniel Craig would replace Pierce Brosnan as the new James Bond. Fans were up in arms because Daniel Craig has blonde hair and baby blue eyes, instead of themore traditional darker traits that were synonymous with the James Bond character. Funny how once 'Casino Royale' was actually released, those skeptics immediately disappeared.

Daniel Craig proves he has the charm, elegance, presence, and confidence that the fans have come to expect from James Bond. He just has a very powerful aura about him from that start that easily establishes him as the next James Bond.

Mads Mikkelsen plays the main antagonist Le Chiffre, who is one of my favorite James Bond villains. The film actually provides insight into his backstory to shed some light on the motivations behind his actions. Le Chiffre is humanized because the audience simply understands his reasons for being "the bad guy", which makes him much more relatable and interesting as a character. This is the antithesis of traditional Bond villains that have a tendency to be very over-the-top and evil just for the sake of being evil.

Eva Green plays Vesper Lynd, who is assigned to supervise James Bond during his mission. Not only is Eva Green stunningly beautiful, she also perfectly portrays the charm, wit, determination, and overall likeability of Vesper. Not much can be said without getting into spoiler territory, but I will say her story arc is one of the highlights of the movie. The women in the James Bond franchise have historically been shallow sex objects, but Vesper's character contains significantly depth than female characters in prior films.

The action sequences are perfectly placed throughout the film and choreographed beautifully. However, some of the most suspenseful scenes in the film aren't even the scenes with action. The high stakes poker game itself unfolds in a way that creates enormous suspense and excitement. These scenes at the card table are so perfectly crafted, the audience is left with even greater anticipation and excitement than any action scene in the film.

Every part of 'Casino Royale' is extraordinarily well-written. The characters are interesting, relatable, and have depth. The plot is stimulating and compelling. The movie is beautifully shot. There is so much attention to detail. There are so many small moments scattered throughout the film that add massive amounts of depth to the story. There are many elements of cinematography utilized, like lighting/colors/camera angles, that perfectly complement the storytelling aspect of the film.

'Casino Royale' is not just a good James Bond film, it's a good film altogether. It's a must-watch film for anyone, whether or not you're a fan of the James Bond franchise.
16 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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
80 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Perfect? Of course not, but it's the closest I've seen to Ian Fleming's novels
planktonrules6 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
For many years, I have longed to see a James Bond series actually based on the books. While some of the Bond films have been a lot of fun, most have practically nothing to do with the great Ian Fleming novels. Sadly, in a few cases (such as YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE), about the only similarity between the books and the movies were the titles!

In fact, the original CASINO ROYALE was a horrid film in practically every way except for the music. While some of the characters were retained, the movie was an abysmal mess--a very high budget and confusing mess. It was purported to be a comedy, though practically none of the film was funny and like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, the plot was impossible to follow and bore no similarity to the book. Fans of Ian Fleming usually twitch with disgust at even hearing the title of this god-awful film--thank goodness someone FINALLY wanted to do the Fleming novel some justice!

In the books, Bond was a bourbon drinking, chain-smoking assassin. CASINO ROYALE was the first book and Bond was his most human in it. In the book, Bond struggled with guilt over the many people he'd killed--and they were NOT killed in crazy and exotic ways like they were in most of the movies. Most were either shot or killed with his bare hands. Bond was, above all else, a killer--not quite as sexy or sophisticated as he was in the films. While Craig isn't quite the same as Fleming's Bond (he's missing the scar down his cheek), he's much closer to the novels than any prior Bond incarnation. I miss that Bond and am glad that, in part, the new CASINO ROYALE finally features much of this cold-blooded and flawed character.

Now I do understand that EON Productions couldn't repeat the novel completely--heck, it was set in the early 1950s and many allowances needed to be made for current events. And as far as the updates went, they generally were in the same spirit as the original movie and the cat and mouse game between Le Chiffre and Bond is essentially that of the novel.

All this does NOT mean that the movie will only appeal to those who read the books. There are still many exciting chase scenes and stunts like you'd expect to see in a Bond film but fortunately Bond didn't seem so invincible. Daniel Craig's version of Bond could apparently do what the prior Bonds could do, but you'll notice throughout the film that he's cut and bruised--not exactly a man of steel. I loved this and it did tend to make the unrealness of the stunts seem a tad more believable. Plus, again, Fleming would be thrilled as several stories he wrote talked about the toll on Bond's body.

The film was well-constructed, stunt heavy but not enough to alienate purists like myself and intelligently written. About the only people who will strongly dislike this film are those who are looking for a reincarnation of Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Craig certainly doesn't look or act like either of these two guys. While I could easily imagine Connery's or Moore's characters sipping martinis while engaged in gay banter with their arch-enemies, Craig is more the type you'd expect to beat the enemies to death with his bare hands--like a REAL government assassin. Wow, do I like the change!

PS--The Aston Martin DBS V12 in this movie is a gorgeous car and it should be with a base price of $265,000. In the film, it is destroyed and I truly hope this was a model or something other than one of these great sports cars--it would be tragic if they really did in this car!
80 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
My fav Bond in one of my fav Bond movie and that too with an amazing parkour chase sequence.
Fella_shibby16 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw this in 2006 with my family in a theatre.

Revisited it recently on a dvd which I own.

This is the twenty-first in the Bond series and the first film to star Daniel Craig as James Bond and my first Bond film seen in a theatre.

Basically it is a reboot and here we get to see an MI6 operative promoted to 00 agent status by assassinating two targets.

So to achieve a licence to kill, he has to kill minimum two targets.

In this one Bond pursues a bomb-maker which leads him to a corrupt official Alex Dimitrios in the Bahamas.

Bond later uncovers the plot of the destruction of Skyfleet's prototype airliner by a private banker to terrorists known as Le Chiffre.

This film has one of the best parkour chase sequence.

It has old skool action n thankfully there is no reliance on gadgets n cgi.

One of the best part is that we get to see a Bond who is inexperienced, vulnerable n his transition to a cold blooded killer is very well done. Thank God, ther is no cheeky humor.

Daniel Craig in this movie is in very good shape n at times his character is believable, which can run, sprint, endure both torture n poison and sometimes who gives a damn whether its shaken or stirred, unlike his predecessors.

This time Bond faces Le Chiffre n his henchmen Valenka, Alex Dimitrios, Kratt, Carlos Nikolic and one of the world's best free runner Mollaka Danso, a freelance terrorist working for Chiffre n Dimitrios.

Bond also faces the machete yielding terrorist Steven Obanno n his bodyguard.

Bond pursues Mr. White n faces his henchmen, the most famous being Adolph Gettler, the man with a unique glasses who gets shot in the eye.

I miss those olden Bond villain's powerful henchmen.

This time Bond gets to cool off with Caterina Murino n Eva Green.

The film ends at a breathtaking beautiful location of Lake Como, the most beautiful lake in the world for its microclimate and environment with prestigious villas and villages.

It also ends with the iconic dialogue.
33 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best Bond i have ever seen, Daniel Craig's first best Bond 007 my third favorite
ivo-cobra825 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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!
178 out of 228 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
913 out of 1,224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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
989 out of 1,370 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
56 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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 !
315 out of 563 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
695 out of 993 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good bond film
jillbeckinheim730 October 2021
I think the best James bond was Pierce brosnan - I know you disagree with this, but that's my opinion.

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

That said the first half is superb and the African scenes where Bond pursues his quarry back to the embassy are amongst the most exciting action sequences you will see in any movie . Likewise the attempted bombing at Miami airport that shows Bond can be a callous assassin when he has to be . Craig is wonderful in the role and he's helped in no small part by a lack of comedy situations and characters as seen in previous entries . Some people might miss Q and his gadgets but I didn't . I much preferred this serious character driven Bond.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
520 out of 744 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Never say Bond again
avisekarora2418 November 2006
It is a wee bit surprising that Casino Royale is rated so high. Though its a very good smart action flick with all the works, chase and stunts and blowing up a house in Venice and you know what, but its absolutely not a Bond movie. Well, i love movies like MI, Bourne Identity, Munich, etc., but its not the same when you are making a movie based on a cult figure here. Its like Mart being remixed and played in a nightclub. Craig is a good action hero but when you are playing Bond you have to restrain yourself because for heavens sake Bond is not a cowboy. Bond is not about muscles and thats where the director misses the plot. We have been flooded with remakes and a more "realistic" and "original" portrayal of our legendary figures which is accepted as creative license, but sometimes its better to leave a few things as they are/were.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
324 out of 665 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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!
319 out of 451 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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
769 out of 1,134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
223 out of 324 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
690 out of 1,038 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
007
0U13 February 2020
Daniel Craig's debut as 007 which he knocked out of the park. A very grounded, smart, realistic James Bond film. Casino Royale is debatably for most fans the best Bond film and I can honestly view this film as a movie of its own to be honest. Daniel Craig is the best bond since Sean Connery.
59 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Name might be Bond; but everything else is different
MrGeorgeKaplan21 November 2006
OK, it's a good film – in fact it is a great film. It's just not a Bond film.

I've got a few bits of ranting to do here, so excuse the lack of clear narrative.

Casino Royale has just had its opening weekend here in the UK and it's the HIGHEST GROSSING FIRST WEEKEND FOR ANY BOND FILM… EVER!!!. That's because cinema tickets are even more expensive than they were three years ago when Die Another Day came out. Also, since when has the weekend started on a Thursday? That's when I watched it, along with a load of other mugs who netted the cinemas £1.7m on the first day / preview.

Daniel Craig is undoubtedly a fine actor. I was particularly impressed with him in the virtually unseen The Trench. He has also put in some time to go to the gym, which is something I certainly don't have the discipline to do. He also looks bloody great in a suit while toting advanced automatic weaponry. I'm not so sure about the whole swimming trunk issue - if you want equality, fine, but that means some girls in bikinis too – that's how equality works. The whole taciturn, monosyllabic persona is great… for Jason Bourne… or possibly The Terminator, but this is Bond, with a cheesy quip for every situation: Sean Connery' - That's quite a nice little nothing you're almost wearing. I approve.' George Lazenby - 'this never happened to the other guy' (perhaps Craig was thinking of that when he was putting on his trunks). Roger Moore - elevated eyebrow, Pierce Brosnan - 'I thought Christmas only came once a year'. It takes Craig the entire film to unfreeze his face for long enough to say 'Bond, James Bond.'

Then the gadgets… oh well. James Bond is not a real person. He was never meant to be, he is a construct and a very important part of that construct is the gadgets. He is defined more by the car he drives and the clothes he wears than he is by his hair-colour or physique. To take this away from him is to empty him out rather than 'strip him back' as everyone is so fond of saying of Craig-Bond. To be honest I've not been happy with the whole Aston Martin thing since Ford bought Aston Martin, the '64 DB6 is a great hand-built bit of kit. The DBS is built in bulk for dull bankers who need something to blow their bonuses on. The whole travesty of the hire car at the airport is just completely beyond the pale. Okay Ford gave them £15m and a load of Jaguars and Astons, but Bond works for Queen and country, not for the highest bidder, and he is met the airport, not hanging about the Hertz desk while some fat tourists complain about their car not having a/c. So what have we got left? He has a defibrillator in the glove box of his car – old men with inappropriately young wives have defibs in their glove boxes.

Eva Green is pretty easy on the eye, but her real name is better than her Bond name (Vesper Lind sounds like a limited edition chocolate moped – sorry Mr Fleming). Her accent was weird and all over the shop, and her motivation was pretty confused for one supposed to be so bright. And can we not have any more Bond falling in love? Please? Weirdly Lazenby and Rigg managed to pull it off, but really Bond is a swinger at heart and modern girls can get their kicks with them too. This debacle just makes the end of the film drag on and on.

Speaking of the ending, basically wtf! Bond films don't end like that. They just don't. I can't believe I'm not allowed to spoil it for you, but I can take solace in the fact that it spoils itself.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
495 out of 759 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not the Bond I Grew Up With
rtrhodes18 November 2006
I miss the Bond I grew up with. Thought the film was about 30 minutes too long. If the goal of the producers was to take Bond back to his roots, then why bring back the actress that played M in the role for the past four films. Also, if their goal was to make Bond appeal to a younger audience then based on who I saw at the theater last night, they missed the mark. The action scenes were great and Daniel Craig is a very good actor…but I miss my Bond I have come to know. I must say I was disappointed in the opening title sequence. A bit cheap looking and the song was not very memorable. If you want a Bond closer to the character in the books, then Daniel Craig is it.
36 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An all-time Bond favourite
Leofwine_draca23 December 2015
I've long been a fan of the James Bond series but I couldn't help but feel that Pierce Brosnan was the worst Bond: smarmy, ever-knowing, hammy and taking the films as a joke. So I was pretty pleased when I heard that Daniel Craig was to take over the role, and that CASINO ROYALE would attempt to take the Bond series back to its roots. The good news is that CASINO ROYALE is a great Bond film, the best since Timothy Dalton starred in the role, and it ably offers all that fans would expect from the spy genre: tense stand-offs, lots of brutal fight scenes, assassins, globe-trotting hijinks, lengthy chases and double-crossing galore. The film is criss-crossed with intense action scenes and, indeed, things kick off with a hi-stakes chase atop a crane as Craig chases after a "free running" villain.

The action can't get much better than this but it frequently proves to be top-notch, with a great truck chase at an airport and a sinking building in Venice. The hand-to-hand combat is intense and punishing, really pushing the boundaries of the film's 12 certificate. Elsewhere, Bond bags the sexiest Bond girl in a VERY long time – I'm talking about Eva Green, a French newcomer who popped up in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Thankfully, she's not swathed in heavy robes here, and she's a real stunner.

I liked the fresh feel that this film bought to the franchise. Much of the suspense comes from a lengthy game of poker; doesn't sound too interesting, you might think, but it's got more tension than a dozen Vin Diesel movies. There's a layer of finesse and style over the whole proceedings and the locations and cars are as breathtaking as ever. Craig puts in a very good, concentrated effort in his first outing as Bond; he recalls Timothy Dalton's dark, angsty turn in the role and blows Pierce Brosnan clean out of the water. Although this is the longest Bond movie ever, it never becomes boring, and even the romance and exposition is interesting for a change. I can't wait for the next film!
38 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Live and Let Spy
bittersweet-me25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Many moons ago, my parents took my sister and I to the drive thru to see DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. I'm sure sis and I would have preferred a Disney movie at the time, but even at our age, it was pretty impressive when Sean Connery got his Mustang up on two wheels. Between that fateful starry night and now, I have ended up seeing every James Bond movie.

So the idea of working off some Thanksgiving day turkey and taking my son 30 years later to see CASINO ROYALE was fun. This movie features Daniel Craig as the new James Bond. And a new James Bond with an advertised new attitude. No more invisible cars, rocket back packs, laser beam wrist watches, or ejector seats.

I had seen Daniel Craig in LAYER CAKE and MUNICH and was already a fan, and he brings great acting chops, athleticism, and toughness to the role. Supporting Craig with their own wonderful acting are Judi Dench as "M' and Eva Green as the female lead.

And the villain of the movie? Goldfinger, Dr No, no the real villain is the pacing. The movie starts off all action, then builds the plot, then gets into the high stakes poker game and kind of bogs down. The writers even try to throw in some Idi Amin African type baddies in the middle of the poker game to break the monotony. Finally the poker game is over, and James Bond jumps in his Aston Martin to chase after the bad guys. Everyone in the movie theater straightened up in their seats for the finale. 30 seconds later, he is out of the car, with barely one fast slide through a curve.

1/2 hour later the movie is still going, and at the beginning of every new scene, the people in front of me 'sigh'. Finally the movie ends and a sigh of relief comes out of the crowd, no cheering, no applause, just relief. No one wanted to walk out in the middle, you want to see how the characters end up, but the 'natives' were definitely restless.

We walked into the theater at 7:10 and walked out at 10:00. If they would have made the movie 1/2 hour shorter and had that car chase everyone wanted for the finale, they would have made 100 million dollars more.

So the verdict is keep Craig, fire the screenwriter, kudos for attempting to have James Bond grow up, now if only I would grow up.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
144 out of 287 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed