New bond generation or typical hollywood garbage? - Casino Royale Reviews

I am a James Bond Fan. Having Said that, Ms. Broccoli and Saltzman, You should have listened to the Fans when they resoundingly "No!" to Daniel Craig. However, since the script was typical hollywood GARBAGE, I don't mind the fact that Daniel Craig will sink with this installment of the Bond Series. Overall Grade: D ****SPOILERS****** Do Not Read Below Here if you Don't want to know the storyline. First off, the biggest problem was Paul Haggis' Script. Obviously some viewers were able to ignore sorry plot machinations Such as: Opening Scene: Lackluster Opening. The Opening Scene SHOULD Have been the one where Bond is Chasing the unknown man doing the acrobatics, And then the Opening song AND Then scene where he goes after and kills the MI6 Leak. The opening scene is the setup for the rest of the Bond film. This was a COMPLETE Let Down! The Most Glaring Problem with this story is the fact that Judy Dench Plays 'M'. Since she doesn't appear as M until Goldeneye this is obviously a continuity problem. This also creates a subsequent problem, as Dench's M is the one who recommends Bond to be a Double 0 agent (she says so in this film). Then In Goldeneye, she tells Bond that, "It's no secret Bond, I don't like you. I think you're a relic of the cold war, Chauvanistic, Masogonistic..etc." So then why did she recommend him. Dench Has a line in Casino Royale, where she state's she misses the cold war. Why her 'M' State such a thing if in Goldeneye she didn't like Bond because he was a relic OF the cold war? My third problem with this film is the fact that the whole movie surrounds a card game. Not Just any card game, but the whole movie is set up around this particular card game, hence the name 'Casino Royale'. Fully 1/2 hour to 45 mins is spent developing this tense game of Egos. My First Problem with this is that Bond traditionally Plays Baccarat NOT Texas Hold-em, though at all card Games Bond is the master, So this was a small insignificance. Second problem with this scene is that it just lasted too darn long. Granted it follows in the name of the film, but with the lack of action in this film overall, it would have helped speed up the movie if this scene was reduced. I like to call this the Clock-Watch scene as I kept checking my watch to how long and when this scene would be over. Oh Yeah, and then there's the fact that if I wanted to watch Texas Hold-em I could watch ESPN2! Next, Bond is poisoned by the villain at the card table. He Heads straight to his Astin Martin where he find a defibrulator. Question. He outright stole the Astin Martin from a villain that was killed earlier in the film. Bond contacted headquarters who told him to hook his heart up to the Defibrulator IN THE GLOVE COMPARTMENT. If this was a stolen car that Bond was using, HOW did HQ know there would be a defibulator in the glove compartment? Another problem, the main villain is torturing Bond. The very same villain that beat Bond at cards In Casino Royale, the same villain that has been Bond's worhtwhile adversary throughout the ENTIRE 2 1/2 hours SO FAR! AND THEN, nameless and faceless bad guys who were only briefly mentioned in the beginning of the film break in and shoot the villain, thereby saving both Bond and the girl. CHEAP! CHEAP! CHEAP! We're CHEATED out of a Miraculous Bond Escape and saving of the damsel in distress. UGH! The Plot THINS.. Oh yeah, and then we find out in the next scene these very same unknown shadowy figures let Bond and the girl just walk away because, he was someone that they could trust versus the main villain who they couldn't trust. To me, this appears as if the screen writer had written himself into a corner and couldn't think up a Miraculous Bond-Like escape so he took a cheap way out. Bond ALWAYS kills the villain. By having an unknown entity kill him, they cheated Bond out of that victory (as well as a remarkable and impossible escape and saving of the girl that Bond is known for) and cheated the Audience as well. Shameful to say the least! Also, In about every action oriented scene, Daniel Craig is show with a sheen of perspiration of sweat. It began to get annoying. YES, the average person sweats when active or under extreme pressure, but that is exactly what separates Bond from the Average Agent. Bond NEVER sweats under pressure, it's part of his character to be a cool customer in extreme stressful situations! Originally I actually thought this movie wasn't too bad, not too good mind you, but not too bad. The more I think about it the worse the movie becomes for me. My last point is the fact that practically EVERY BOND Movie ever made has opened in FIRST PLACE at the Box office. BoxOfficeMojo.Com reports that Bond opened at 40 Million for the weekend (Yes this includes the Thursday Night 12am showing for the weekend). Every Bond movie in its opening weekend has grossed over 100 million Domestically. SAD is all I have to say. Oh and Broccoli and Saltzman, Next time listen to the Fans. What's even more pathetic is that an Animated Penguin movie beat James Bond. How does that happen you ask? Because the Producers need to realize that they should have listened to the fans and the film going audiences and hold to story continuity if their going to try something new!

From a very disappointed fan - Casino Royale Reviews

I've aleays been a James Bond Fan. I watched every one of the James Bond movies. I admitted that some of them are not well made but it's ok as long as the necessary ingredients of a James Bond film are in the movie. When I go see a Bond film I expect a lot of actions and interesting gadgets. They are missing in this film. The few chase scenes and the fighting scenes are just boring. And the long love story... I rather go see Romeo and Juliet; I think it's a Bond film right? In my opinion adding some new elements and showing more of James Bond's human side are good ideas but please don't take away the important ones. Well I am just very disappointed by this movie.

An insult to all bond movies... - Casino Royale Reviews

Im not sure where all these "A" reviews came from...it truly baffles me! If anyone out there is a true Bond fan, there is no way in hell that this movie could be appreciated. Daniel Craig is the worst Bond I have ever seen...I think the people that casted him were on crack. Everyone knows 007 is a tall, dark hair, sophisticated, sauve gentlemen. Daniel Craig looks like a beaten up english pauper. This movie was absolutely rubbish. The storyline did not make sense, nor did it flow well at all. Even the opening song was lousy. From the very get go, it was straight up action, with very little dialogue, and feeble storyline. This is an insult to Mr. Sean Connery...the greatest, and only true Bond...

Overhyped. you will wish you could forget it. - Casino Royale Reviews

This was a lousy long boring movie. I never fidget at the movies. Here I couldn't help but look around at the rest of the audience. Not surprisingly everyone was bored as me. The action was way over done, it became stupid. Superman looked more gritty and real than this. The actor as Bond was a complete loss. I can't even remember his name, he is that forgettable. I wish we never went to this over hyped, bloated carcass of what had been Bond. The good reviews are completely wrong, so wrong I wonder if they had the same movie we got. My boyfriend was so bored he was watching for mistakes, the guy in the row behind us as well. I was grateful for the distraction. If you're a fan of decent movies do yourself a favor and avoid this one, unless you want to feel like you stuck in a 3 hour church sermon. Because you'll be that aware of the time passing. For the first time I was wondering about the ceiling tiles in the theater, I'm sure they must have some special sound quality. Now if you'll excuse me we have to find Tommy Lee Jones and see about borrowing the MIB flashy thing.

Bond - not - Casino Royale Reviews

I guess I must have seen another movie. It was difficult to follow, and the ending was a let down. James Bond? Only if I close my eyes and imagine, anyone else beside Daniel Craig. He has as much appeal as James Bond as Pee Wee Herman. And the Bond girls? Would someone adjust their make up. This is not a believable Bond. It is a gritty world from which a movie goer would cry to escape. Go see Santa Clause 3.

Not a bond movie (74/100) - Casino Royale Reviews

A flick that's in name only. A good action movie that has very little to do with being a Bond movie. minus 9 for two flat-chested "girls" where are the beautiful women and boobs? minus 7 for long boring scenes so they have sex, ok, now back to the action minus 7 for crassness and not being cool Sean Connery was smooth, slick, thoughtful this one is just muscular minus 3 for no good gadgets although a difib in the glove case is nice, nothing really fun was provided

Oh, shaken and stirred... - Casino Royale Reviews

James Bond is back with a vengeance. Chiseled and perfected, Craig makes the subtle shift from Layer Cake to 007 with style. The film enhances the franchise, bringing it back to its roots, and does not disappoint for its neo-retro outfitting. Action shots are breathtaking, time passes in complete immersion, and although my personal pick for the role might have been Clive Owen, Daniel Craig changed my mind. He delivers, with beneath-surface simmering emotion, a tight grasp of the new role, and an incredible body. Go see (and enjoy) this film!!!

What an embarrassment to a great franchise - Casino Royale Reviews

Not only was this worse Bond movie, it was the worse movie I have ever seen. What a debacle for a great franchise. The acting sucked, the plot really sucked and the action was non existent. Do not waste your money on this looser, I cannot believe Broccoli's family put his name on this disaster.

How bad can a movie get? - Casino Royale Reviews

Undoubtly the worst 007 movie i have seen. I wasted my night watching the premiere in Greece. I can not believe what im reading from the critics and the press...I asure you that the PR of the film made a much much better job than anyone else involved in the movie. And the love story..plainly pathetic

Dont expect a real bond - Casino Royale Reviews

this is the worst bond film of all time- completely devoid of a real story or any of the elements that make a bond film- the baddies were awful, the bond chicks were crap and there were no gadgets. Worst of all was Daniel Craig as bond- he is at the bottom of the bond list, way at the bottom. If you must see this it will only enforce how good connery and moore were in this role. hopfully the 1st and last bond movie he ever does.

Female action fan - Casino Royale Reviews

I love action movies and this one was exceptional. I prefer it when the action sequences look somewhat plausible, as they did, for the most part, in this one. They seemed more plausible than the stunts in far too many action flicks of late, like the MI series. The story is good, but I would've preferred more poker scenes and less poke her ones. But I recognize the guys who love Bond want the babes. You didn't get much, but we did get some, yeah baby. I for one was glad that the silly names for the women was dispensed with, except for Bond's one feeble attempt to call her Broadchester in the cab--hey, enough of that! :D No one in the audience I saw it with got that but for me. I think that was because too much of the dialogue was poorly enunciated throughout the movie. I especially like that the writers didn't treat us like idiots who have to have everything spelled out, but actors, talk clearly already. Please? Too many movie actors nowadays try to talk like "real folk" but the problem is real folk can't talk. What Craig brought to the role was charisma and a wry smile when he has pulled off a coup over the bad guy. Craig is subtle, and not such a manicured pretty boy like some Bonds, save one. But there really is only one true Bond--Connery, Sean Connery. But Craig is a heart-throbbing second. Really, not a bad place to be, considering the Connery legacy he has to stare down. I think he did it well.

These critics are idiots..... - Casino Royale Reviews

For those of you who enjoyed the movie, I can agree that there were some great action sequences and the first chase scene is phenominal. This movie could have been extremely enjoyable but .... to the misfortune of EON and Daniel Craig, this movie belongs to a long list of exciting, familiar, and classic movies that fall under the famous James Bond Banner. With that said, we have to judge this movie by the same key ingredients that we love, look forward to, and get excited by when watching a Bond movie. See, it's true that every Bond movie is different, but they all share the familiar attributes, which if neglected, would throw the movie "off" and force it out of place in the famous movie series. Without further due, the following is a list of obvious and extremely blasphemous characteristics of Casino Royale, even if it was supposed to be a prequel. 1) NO THEME MUSIC DURING THE FAMOUS INTRODUCTORY "GUN BARREL" SCENE. Yes, it's true ladies and gentlemen, the famous Monty Norman piece is omitted and replaced with a retarded soft rock song. This left me uneasy and irritated throughout the whole movie, since the "gun barrel" sequence is the initial excietment generator when beginning to watch any Bond film. 2) DANIEL CRAIG? What happened to the smooth chauvinistic, arrogant, and handsome bond? Daniel Craig's acting is alright, but he is so out of sorts when compared to the rest of the Bonds. He looks more like a Manchester United hooligan or the son of an Irish potato farmer. The short, balding, blonde Craig fits the typical American desire of "stronger, faster, and new and improved", that the commercial industries love to attach to retail products. Unfortunately, for true Bond fans, he's nowhere near new and improved. 3) IS THAT A FORD FOCUS? James Bond is spotted driving a Ford in this movie. Look, I don't care if it was a rental car, Bond in a Ford is like Michael Jordan wearing New Balance sneakers. You will never spot it. 4) WHERE IS Q OR Q's REPLACEMENT? No Q, means no gadgets. Enough said. 5) BOND THE LOVERBOY. It's true that Bond was once married, but why do you think his bride was killed of so quickly? In the same movie even? Because this is a horrible turn-off that'll limpen any Bond hard-on. Bond doesn't fall in love. Females are disposable items to him that he usually uses to get closer to his enemies. Casino Royale portrays Bond as a romantic comedian loverboy who will risk his life to chase after an untrustworthy broad. He also seems "whipped" as he debates his resignation for the sake of marrying this shrew and is seen crying out of love for her. Even after she betrays him, he tries to save her life.

Casino royale - Casino Royale Reviews

The worst James Bond movie ever! The OO7 misses sophistications and charm; Daniel Craig is not well suited for this part. His acting throughout the movie is self-contained. His dialogs resemble a chat between gang members during a street fight. The plot is terrible with soap-like story line. One of the opening seines features JB demolishing a guy in the restroom. Furthermore, new JB missing the attributes of 007: no ?Q?, no girls. The JB car features several guns and the malfunctioning defibrillator. Where did all the gadgets go? Save time and money stay home and watch TV shows, probably they are more entertaining than the new OO7.

James bond is dead - Casino Royale Reviews

James bond is dead. I am not known for seeing movies in the theaters. But since 1977 I have seen ever Bond film there has ever been in the theater. I have suffered thru Roger Moore and some real far fetched stunts but I have always loved the Bond films. I just got back from Casino Royale and I can tell you I may never see another Bond film again. It seems that the powers that be felt that Bond need to be recreated. From there they went to completely destroying the character in what I can only guess is an attempt to make Bond more ?human?. Anyway, call the film anything else and I would watch it, call it Bond and you have killed the last great franchise film

No respect for what was - Casino Royale Reviews

The people who made this film have no respect for the legacy created by nearly 35 years of Bond films. If you have no respect for that legacy and you believe that they got it wrong when they created the film version of James Bond, then you will probably like this movie. James Bond in this film is human. Believably human. He's much more realistic. Some people were obviously looking for that, based on the reviews. Most of us who liked the old Bond stayed away from this picture, which is why it's getting the positive reviews it is. If you'll notice, most reviews are either great or awful. That comes from whether you liked what was or whether you didn't. If you liked the type of Bond films they used to make, you probably won't like this one. If you didn't like the old Bond films, then maybe this movie is for you. For me it comes down to the Shaken not Stirred line and playing poker instead of baccarat. I liked the bacarrat. I liked that James Bond wanted his vodka martini shaken not stirred. I liked that he cared about the women he was with, but that his job (saving the world) always came first. If you agree with me, avoid this movie. If you have the opposite point of view, you're in luck. There's a movie out there waiting for you that you'll probably enjoy.

The fantasy is dead - Casino Royale Reviews

This was one dreary experience for a long time James Bond fan. The slow pace of the between action sequences were particulary tedious. I guess we were supposed to get into the psyche of one James Bond. The Bond girls were a disappointment too. How do you explain that James is having his you-know-what bashed to death and then a little while later is making out with the girl he's going to throw it all away for? The World Series of Poker is more entertaining than the hold em chapter. This was a Bond stripped of any toys, fun, or sense of humor. I knew the critic reviews were bogus. This Bond was one not to die for. Connery was the best, Moore brought some humor, and Brosnan offered style. D Craig offers little more than some quizzical looks at his leading lady. Since when does James Bond not get a read on his leading lady? I won't be buying the DVD which is a true measure of the quality, or lack thereof.

James boring - Casino Royale Reviews

There should be an anticipation associated with a new James Bond film. Casino Royale has the excitement of watching Texas Hold em with bad commercials. The movie begins with a very exciting scene in Madagascar. The low level very talented acrobatic bad guy being chase by Bond through a construction site destroying everything and the crane scene was incredible and the actions got us comfortable for another great thriller. Alas with lowered expectations we were exposed to Bond women whom did nothing to remind us of the early Bond classics. The bad guy has a blind eye that bleeds and creeps you out and is distracting. This is a guy that is trying to extort money through a gambling game where all 15 contestants must put up 10 Million dollars with the winner moving that money into their own personal account. The premise is sound but the relationship between Bond and the Vesper Lynd character is like watching dieting tips on the VIEW. We get it that its the chess match love match, but it takes the early exciting scenes and turns this into a romantic flick disguised as an action show. Luckily Craig shows his very stiff acting ability in a scene in the airport that is very exciting as Bond foils the largest plane in the world from getting a rude sendoff. Fill in the blanks. The gadgets that I was waiting to see and the brief time that the fun character Q is missing. We are forced to listen to the whining M whom is one character that doesn't appear to add any value to the movie. This is a movie to fast forward through many scenes. I understand the need to upgrade the Ian Fleming classic but the new Bond doesn't have it in this movie. I'll give him another chance in the next movie but this should be one and done. The need to sleep through many parts of this movie only stirred me occasionally. The grand finale ended after the 1st half hour of the movie and like paint drying I got bored stiff. I haven't been this dissapointed since the other stiff Superman Returns. The Casino scenes were mildly intertwined with bad guys beating up Bond and vice versa. Don't waste your time go rent one of the originals they were corny but we didn't have to agonize between the new sensitive Bond at the end of the movie. The scenery was terrific but the acting and bad chemistry between Craig and the Bond women leave us looking for someone cool with the smarts to outwit the bad guys and gadgets that are clever and make us wanting to watch it over again. Keep your options open this is a poor effort with so much potential. There was more excitement by the folks waiting 3 days in the cold for the PS3 than I saw in the audience. Take your HAPPY FEET to another movie.

No q, no bond girl, no gadgets, very disappointing - Casino Royale Reviews

This movie is missing too many classic Bond elements. Forget Craig for a moment, he is the least of the problems. There is no Bond girl or tough villainess. The female lead is a frail damsel in distress. There is no "Q" or ultra-cool gadgets. The opening scene is so weak, I didn't realize the movie started. The graphics for the opening credits are retro, which is cool at first; but then it's the same thing over and over. There is a very long slow part in the middle, and the end is predictable. The signature theme music that normally resonates throughout a Bond movie to add that extra edge is not there, either. The most disturbing part is the seemingly intentional attempt to separate this Bond from others. When a bartender asks Bond if he wants his martini shaken or stirred, he responds, "Do I look like I give a damn?" AGH! Can't we at least keep that classic line? Daniel Craig is a fine actor, but he wasn't given the right story, wardrobe, or women to be James Bond; and honestly, he just doesn't look like 007. He is rugged, but we're used to a sleek, debonair, tough-yet-charming and painfully handsome James Bond. We don't get it here. This movie does not feel like a Bond flick. It is basically just another movie, but it happens to have a lead character named James Bond.

Mediocre, and in no way a bond movie - Casino Royale Reviews

Ok, first off, I'm a big James Bond fan. I've read all the books, seen all the movies, so I was looking forward to seeing this opening night. The first thing that smacks the Bond fans in the face, is that the filmmakers have completely butchered the series timeline. We are introduced to Bond in this movie, as he was when he was just granted "00" status. So that puts us, where, the late '60s? Cool, well, not so cool, this movie is set in 2006. Bummer. Ok, I can accept that I guess, but wait, there is more. M is still the Judi Dench character who took over from the former M, but this is before... oh hell, ok, so there is no attempt at all to preserve the Bond movie timeline. They also did away with many of the Bond series staples. There are no gadgets, there is no "Q", and there is no Moneypenny. Ok, so this movie is clearly not a "James Bond" movie in the classic sense. But is it good as an action film? Is it entertaining? Hmm, not so much. In all other Bond films, and most films in this genre, you expect the "badguy" to present some form of danger to the populous in general. You know, a nuclear bomb, poison gas, inciting a war, something like that. In this movie we get... a stock broker, trying to defraud the market out of a few hundred million which he would presumably just pocket and then go live out his life on a desert island somewhere. So why would the Secret Service even care about something like this? Good question, no clue. There really is never any sense of danger, or urgency, or even anything interesting going on in this film. It just kind of meanders around, flashes a bunch of product placements in our face, and then abruptly ends without really any resolution. Even given these constraints the plot is terribly uninspired. James Bond seems to only have one trick up his sleeve to solve mysteries. He kills someone, takes their cell phone, and checks the history of whom they have called recently. That's it. So in summary: the plot is terrible. This is in no way continues the Bond legacy in terms of story or timeline, and the whole movie is just extremely uninspired.

Bond back alive! - Casino Royale Reviews

This is one of the best bond films ever. Before this movie I thought Bourn Identity/Supremacy was the best spy movie since Sean Connery. They finally did away with "pretty boy" idea and put their mind to the character of James Bond. This one rejuvinates Bond character the way it's supposed to appeal to the general public. Awesome!

Casino royale (spoiler) - awesome!!! - Casino Royale Reviews

One word... AMAZING. I never saw a more believeable Bond character since the early films of Sean Connery. Casino Royale's Bond is an unrefined, reckless, unpolished, aggressive, injury prone, cold blooded killer. In essence, a raw piece of meat, that as the film goes on and he gains more experience becomes this prime piece of sirloin. It is important to remember that this story is about Bond's first time being a double O agent. This is why the writers took liberties with the opening gun barrel scene, the vodka martini, the Aston Martin, and the infamous "Bond, James Bond". It's a great choice to a very established character. We get to see how Bond becomes Bond with all his famous signatures. Think "Batman Begins", another great film. Casino Royale went deeper with the Bond character and asked, "What kind of man emotionally would it take to be a double O agent and what are the dangers involved in such an exciting career?" Casino Royale's Bond is bruised, bloodied, beaten, stabbed, poisoned and tortured in several occasions. He walks around half the film covered in scabs and scars. He is detached from his feelings and makes a clear statement how he prefers married women because it is less complicated. With no family and friends, he truly is a man alone with nothing to live for, which makes him the perfect candidate for a double O agent. It's one of the best Bond film to come out in decades and ranks in my top 2 or 3 of James Bond films of all time.

The end of james bond.... - Casino Royale Reviews

I watched the new Bond movie called, "Casino Royale" and do I have a lot to say about this film. First the good stuff.....(to soften up the blow) I admire the fact that the production was willing to take some chances in keeping the character fresh. Chances such as not giving Bond as much gadgets to use, showing a more human side of Bond and overall starting over with the character. I also liked some of the comedy that was implemented in some scenes. Now the bad stuff....(if you liked this movie ALOT do not read the next few paragraphs because I will rip it a new 'you know what'!) The production took one chance that may cost them dearly to the entire francise and that was casting a "new" James Bond. The actor Daniel Craig did not look like a James Bond. I believe this actor is in his late 30s...but to me he look like he was ready to turn 50 and was about to go bald. His hair was so short that I think he was in the progress of baldness. This guy did not fit the role. The production forced it in like a square piece trying to fit into a circle space. This guy looks more suitable to be villian. James Bond doesn't have to look incredible, but he has to display himself through his actions to be incredible. All the other actors from Connery to Bronsan had the role down and displayed it quite perfectly in their own style. Connery was a very original type of Bond, Lazenbary (he was in one Bond film called On Her Majesty's Secret Service aka OHMSS)was a suitable replacement, but since he one did one Bond movie you can't really judge him quite well, Roger Moore had a more comicial personality of Bond, Dalton portrayed a more novelistic sense of Bond...meaning he was almost like the character from the Bond novels and finally Bronsan who was a combination of Connery and Moore. Don't believe me? Refer back to the movies and you'll see that Bronsan has 50% Connery and 50% Moore. Now I understand that this is Craig's first Bond film and I admire him for doing his best...however let's get this straight right now, HE DID NOT FIT THE PART OF BOND! I see him more of a villian. He almost reminds me of agent 006 in the movie "Goldeneye". Don't believe me? Then watch that movie as well. If the production was going to replace Bronsan, they could've gotten somebody who actually fit the part. Craig looked too old to be a rookie agent. And they said they wanted a younger actor! Bronsan may be in his 50s but he still looks young enough to be in his late 30s. The way Craig portrayed Bond was a disappointment. The Bond he portrayed was a complete combination of wimpus-americanus/macho-kid. Without giving away the movie, he was a wimp during the serious relationship with the Bond Girl "Vesper". Towards the end of the movie really supports that notion of him being a WIMP (HINT: Watch him chase after Vesper). He was a macho-kid for trying to take unnecessary risks and for making poor judgement calls within the action. I understand that this particular Bond was suppose to be an agent who just started out. Realistically speaking the things that he did in the first 30minutes of the movie would get a real agent suspended without pay...or even FIRED! The producers I think said that they wanted a more "realistic Bond". Yeah right I'm gonna laugh at that statement after watching this film. Sean Connery was the most realistic Bond. So was Moore and so was Bronsan. However, Sean Connery stood out as THE realistic James Bond! Daniel Craig was more of a wimp/macho-kid. He was mostly a macho-kid because of his ego that just made him a stupid agent. The story of the movie I felt was awkward and unstable. For most of the movie Bond was more of a Rogue Agent. I read some of the original novel of Casino Royale and that's not what Bond was. James Bond in the novel followed orders and never took unnecessary risks. A character should only take risks only if it is necessary. Bond in the novel was NOT so much of a Rogue. Bond in the novel followed orders and only took "necessary risks". Now I haven't finished all of the novel, but I think the novel had a more richer character. All the movie did was take a fraction of the story, some original lines from the novel and the characters. The character James Bond I think they approached it all wrong. I understand James Bond is cold blooded, but if you watch the movie, how can he be so cold-blooded and also have high interest of love in a woman that he barely knows? Watch carefully at the relationship of Bond and Vesper and hopefully you'll understand exactly what I mean. This movie did not surpass Die Another Day because Casino Royale got NO appaluse. Die Another Day got an appaluse. What the movie could've done better was this: 1. Either keep Bronsan OR if you want a new actor so so badly get one that looks the part! This means an actor who has darker hair, actually looks younger, and has the ability to be 50% tough and 50% nice. I think all the actors before Craig had this. 2. Get rid of the current actress who plays M! Having her in the movie looked awkward since she came from the Bronsan era. 3. Do NOT reference 9/11 when introducing a character that is over 50 years old. That made the whole unity of time and space very awkward. It should've been a separate unity of time and space where there were other issues to be mentioned. 4. Start off Bond as being interview by M for the first time. It would've introduced both characters and it would've established the original professional relationship between the two. Either as a flashback or as a scene of itself. 5. Every single person who has responsible for this film should think LONG and hard about what they could've done better. I'm not sure if it was the writers who destroyed Bond or the Producers...or BOTH! Who ever created this version of Bond, it was almost like some random film studio took the name JAMES BOND and ripped it off! Hell I think I could've rip off the character a lot better than what they did...then again I should've even talk since I'm NOT a professional filmmaker, so nevermind lol. Overall, within the first 30minutes of this film I got that gut feeling that this may be setting up THE END of the JAMES BOND movie series. It was ridiculous of them to fire Bronsan, after all didn't he (besides Roger Moore) save the Bond series? He saved it when he was in the movie "Goldeneye" back in 1995. The James Bond movie series has been one of the most LONGEST movies series in film history! So every single person involved with all films should be proud for making history. The good and the bad. Daniel Craig you tried your best and I respect that, however, I think you'll have to find another job after the series ends. The Producers...collect your paychecks and find a new job.

Finally!!!! - Casino Royale Reviews

Finally we have a believable James Bond. It has been too many years since Sean Connery. Don't get me wrong. Pierce Brosnan was good. He was Sauve, intelligent and hansome. His only problem is he's 135 pounds and my little sister could kick his ass. For a Bond fan Casino Royale was two and a half hours of heaven. They did change 2 things. THe naked women in the credits are gone and they used far less cheeky humor. But, they went back to the tradition of having relatively unknown Bond girls. And, Eva Green will go down as one of the best Bond girls ever. Should you see this movie? Yes!!!!! But, go in expecting a little bit of a departure from past Bonds. In my opinion, this is one of the best Bond films ever made.

Craig. daniel craig. - Casino Royale Reviews

Oh, this one is Good. Very Good. Yes, yes, so I was one of those patience-less people who had to go watch it the very first day it came out. 6pm screening, no less. Unless you've been hiding under a rock for the past few weeks, you'd have doubtless been inundated by the searing publicity surrounding this latest installment of Bond. He's blond, he's ugly, there are no gadgets, blah, blah, blah. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. And in this case, the pudding turns out to be three-Michelin star cr譥 brul鮠 Casino Royale is, in my opinion, one of the best Bond films ever. A complete departure from invisible cars, decapitating bowler hats and orbiting space stations, Casino Royale is light on over-the-top fantasy and heavy on gritty realism. The plot is actually believable (egad! no Koreans DNA-swapped into Englishmen??), you can see Bond's face in almost every fight scene (latest news: unemployment lines in Hollywood packed with body doubles) and horrors of horrors, Mr Bond bleeds, gets whipped in poker and has his family jewels accosted (cringe. i actually spit out my popcorn.). And how was Daniel Craig, I hear you ask. Amazing. OK, so he's not nearly as suave as Sean Connery or as poster-boy as Pierce Brosnan, but he sure does know how to pack a punch. Craig's Bond is gritty, down to earth, human and makes me want to join a gym (again). Coupled with a disarmingly unexpected penchant for comedic one-liners, Craig is one heck of a James Bond. If there's any weakness to be had, I'd say that it's with the pacing of the film. The middle part does fall flat on occasion. And the finale is.... mildly frustrating. Not my favourite type of ending. It's hard to review this film any further without revealing any spoilers and you wouldn't want that, would you, since I'm sure you're going to watch the film this weekend. But I'll say this much, the film grows on you right from the opening sequence - so don't be late to the cinema.

For those of you who wish to bash this film... - Casino Royale Reviews

I am the biggest Bond fan I know. I also have done something most Bond fans don't typically do - I've read the exploits of 007 in Ian Fleming's novels. So, please excuse my smugness, but I believe I have more right to review this movie than those who have already bashed it. First of all, I read a review on here that bashed the violence and portrayal of Bond in general as a cold blooded murderer. Guess what? He is! Ian Fleming created a character that is not Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan in a tux, but an average looking guy with a general disdain for how he lives his life. If he was not a cold blooded murderer (which he hates doing, but must bury), he could not be an efficient agent for Her Majesty's Secret Service. He would be an emotional and psychological mess. He's a bit of a son-of-a-... Well you know, but he did still have a heart and he did fall for the girl in distress most of the time. Most of the time, too, he was heartbroken by betrayal or a villainous plot that stripped that from him. Something else Bond of Fleming's design did not have were the gadgets and cars. He was an supremely intelligent and cunning man. He had to get beat up and abused in order to come back to win the day. Now, before I go into the review of Casino Royale, I need to respond to some of the uneducated reviewers on this board that didn't view the film for what it was advertised as, but viewed it in contrast and competition with 44 years of Bond. There was one who compared this newest adventure to Die Another Day. Give me a break. At best "DAD" was middle of the road in comparison to the rest of the series. It simply did not do what most films in the series did best - stay to it's own style. It tried too hard to beat XXX at it's own game and appeal to the general crappiness of American action film fans. Also... Were you being serious about the chemistry between Halle Berry and Pierce Brosnan?!? She was one of the worst Bond girls ever. Of course she's attractive, but her character was awful and two-dimensional. No wonder they deep sixed her solo exploits. If you thought Die Another Day was one of the best, you have poor taste in Bond films, my friend. Read one of Ian Fleming's Bond novels and you will understand why this film was fantastic. One note about another jerk on here that asked IN BIG FRICKIN' CAPS why he was driving a Ford in the film. Ford owns Aston Martin and Land Rover, idiot. They get to put whatever the heck they want in the film. And I bet that Ford is a lot nicer than your car. I drive a new car and it was nicer, sleeker and sexier looking than mine. Get over it, Ford owned every featured car in the film. STOP WRITING IN CAPS IF YOU DON'T BOTHER TO KNOW FACTS!!! Now that brings me to my review. Bond needed what the filmmakers put on the screen. It's easy to make a Bond film, but it's hard to not copy or rely on that 44 year history. Bond is an assassin first and a person second. Period. What makes this film so wonderful and refreshing was seeing our hero in that struggle. That's what makes this character the best in all of film history. Pierce Brosnan - for as great as he was in the role - made Bond waltz through world-threatening situations too easily. That's been done... Since the beginning. Daniel Craig was a wonderful choice to play the part of Agent 007 because of his ability to look at the role from a different angle. He brought a stone faced, gritty egomaniac to life and blossomed when that self-centered bastard was wrong and beaten. And Eva Green as Vesper Lynd? Wow, she was absolutely stunning. Our villains and double-crossers were some of the best in the series. Overall, the choice in actors and their abilities were top-notch. Not only were they great for Casino Royale and the franchise, they were some of the best of the year. They will be overlooked, of course, but they should not be in comparison to the rest of the series. Now this film is not for the youngsters. There is a gut-wrenching torture scene (which came directly from the original novel, sir, not just thrown in to appeal to people who enjoy violence and gore, but I forgot you raved about the fluffy Die Another Day that had no reality in death or character) and there's murder involved. After all, to receive 00 status, you do have to kill a couple of bad guys and if you haven't done that before, it can get pretty messy. Trust me (no, really, I'm just kidding). If you enjoy the high-quality action James Bond has brought you since 1962, you will love Casino Royale. There's nothing wrong seeing the roots and beginnings of a character most of us who claim we love, and really do love, come to life for the first time. Do not be seduced by the regurgitation that has been happening with most of the last several films. See this movie with an open mind and thank me for it later. I honestly believe the claim "James Bond Will Return" found at the end of the credits (as always) will be easy to deliver.

Different bond but still a great film - Casino Royale Reviews

Daniel Craig pulls off a spectacular performance in Casino Royale that revitalizes the 007 franchise. Even though Daniel Craig might not be a well-known actor he has starred in films that he would be noticeable in such movies as The Road to Perdition, Layer Cake, and Munich. Casino Royale is a remake that depicts the origin of the British undercover agent, James Bond and his journey on becoming the Bond that we all recognize. I thought that this film was going to at least release in 2007 rather than this year. Yet this time we get to observe a greatly gloomy and more merciless James Bond. With his fashionable appearance and his cunning attitude, 007 will not disappoint. Casino Royale is hands down superior to Die Another Day which was tremendously uninteresting and one of the worst 007 films in my standpoint. Casino Royale is about the first James Bond (Daniel Craig) assignment as 007 which evidently directs to the composure of the technologically advanced British secret agent. The objective for James Bond is that he must disrupt the business deal of Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), the financier to the world?s terrorist organizations from playing a high stakes poker games in Montenegro at Le Casino Royale. One of the terrorist that is being financed with the cash is Alex Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian) and with him his flirtatious girlfriend, Solonge (Caterina Murino). To help James Bond with his mission is primary Bond girl, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Vesper accompanies James to construct an image for him and assist him with the poker games. But afterward things get dangerously complicated and Vesper is in danger. It is up to James Bond to drive some glamorous cars and gear up with a number of high-tech gadgets in order to stop the terrorists. The action is exhilarating and the visuals are incredible but the plot doesn?t seem so original. I know that this film is a remake but mainly all the 007 films of the franchise are in reference with something about terrorism. The flying to incredible places like the Bahamas is great scenes to set the mood for the paradise and the scenery for the some of the girls. I really liked this James Bond film rather than the previous ones that have been made. This film has the explosions and the drama features that really bring out what a 007 film is suppose to be. Even though I don?t really know all the cast members that performed on the film I think they did a great job. I really suggest this film if you?re interested in movies with secret agents. Also if you are also fans of the James Bond franchise but do not expect all of the Bond trademark characters to be in this film. I hopefully expect another Bond franchise film like this to comeback shortly. I wouldn?t be surprised if this Casino Royale does exceptionally well in the Box Office.

A very good, but disturbing revival for mr. bond. - Casino Royale Reviews

As a big James Bond fan I excitedly anticipate the opening of a new 007 flick, but having read the Casino Royale, and upon hearing that the filmmakers were going to adhere to the content of Ian Fleming?s first Bond novel, I was a little anxious, as this is a brutal book, and that brutality is brought to the big screen and overshadows the rest of the film, even though it is rated PG-13. Casino Royale is an excellent spy thriller, but very vicious in content, which runs contrary to the escapist fun we mostly expect in a James Bond movie, and therefore, for some this will take a little getting used to. Casino Royale has many plus points which make it one of the better Bond films that have come to the big screen. Firstly Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) ? finally, they have selected a guy who is actually physically and personality wise, fitting of an assassin. Also Craig is an actor?s-actor and can masterfully convey emotion without words and through mere stares with his piercing blue eyes. He may not be as ?pretty? as Pierce Brosnon before him, but Craig does portray Ian Fleming?s Bond more closely with rugged looks, and he looks like a guy who could snap your head off if you rubbed him the wrong way. Secondly, the dialogue in this film is far superior to many of its recent predecessors, perhaps due to the addition of Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby, Crash, Flags of our Fathers) to the writing team, making the popular ?one-liners? seem to actually flow well for a change. The action sequences are back to Goldeneye standards under the helm of Director Martin Campbell (Goldeneye, The Mask of Zorro). Campell, has re-inserted gritty and precise hand-to-hand combat sequences, amazing chase sequences, and off-set those heavy punching elements with bright-colored backdrops and settings that are all classic Bond. So where does the film go wrong ? it?s the content I am afraid. There is a reason why Casino Royale was not made as the first 007 movie, although it was in-fact the first 007 novel ? because the story is overshadowed by the torture of James Bond. Now, we all had to endure Brosnon getting tortured at the hands of the North Korean army in the opening sequence of Die Another Day, which made the rest of the film depressing for the audience, that is not considering the effects on our senses with the invisible car, and a digital Bond para-surfing a tidal wave. You will feel the same mood shift in Casino Royale, not at the beginning of the film ? thank heavens - but further down the line, and unfortunately this torture sequence is vicious . . . accurate to the novel . . . but vicious. For parents taking their kids - be warned, your kid may not get to see the visual intricacies of the torture, but they will understand the cruelty of what is happening. This sequence does depress the mood of the rest of the film, you will be able to tell from the drop in excitement level of the audience from that point, and although you want yourself to say ?yes this was an excellent movie?, you will feel the pit of gloomy depression in your stomach as you get up from your seat to the infamous Bond theme music and rolling credits. Conclusion: One of the better James Bond movies with excellent acting by Daniel Craig who fits the role of 007 very well and carries the film. The film does tend to drag a little long and your attention will start to wander towards the middle. And finally the torture sequence, it overshadows the rest of the film, and you will leave perhaps a little depressed with that sequence in your mind rather than the top-notch chases or fight scenes that you want to take away with you after seeing Bond . . . James Bond.