More Tales From The Darkside 

More comments on Casino Royale...

It was always going to be a problem. As an 'origin' story it was always going to have that fine line of - how different to the others do we make it and how 'BOND' do we make it. Well this is the line that the director of this film hops about on, never QUITE taking the plunge and doing it properly (short, sharp, lethal, conflicted, dynamic) and never QUITE keeping fans of the original series happy. In fact, because of it's extended length (most of it unnnecessary padding that could be reduced to JUST the plot points) the film doesn't know what it is - AT ALL. It's like part Bond, part Daniel Craig po-faced 'worthy' film, part Die Hard and part Ferrero Roche advert.

It's neither a tightly plotted tension potboiler, a hard nosed action flick, a spy film or a romance but at the same time it's bits of all of these. When I think back to the film it feels like I watched three separate movies and non of them very good.

The opening sequence is basically the trailer. They should have kept it secret. The trailers killed this movie. The film makers panicked and so released the trailers they did to hush the wagging tongues of a bunch of morons that cared about the colour of Bond's hair rather than the quality of the film and thus the first third of the movie feels like extended versions of the trailer with a few lines of plot thrown in.

Secondly the THEME tune and the title sequence of this film are appalling. At first I thought - oh this is cool - no wait, it's not, it's awful... it's like someone's 'idea' of what cool is or someone's 'idea' of what Bond should be without ever actually being Bond or Cool.

What's also odd is that the majority of the first third of this movie is big long boring scenes to explain both plot points and Bond's 'motivation' yet his two kills to get his 00 is kind of glazed over (SURELY a much BETTER pre credit sequence could be gleaned from this) and then after the credits were plunged into this introduction of Le Chiffre, who head looks like the surface of a twiglet, wearing a Hitler wig with an unconvincing 'I'm a villain you know' scar over his left eye and despite this apparently 'more realistic earthy' Bond, is still surrounded by the comedy looking, shaved headed thug sidekicks that plagued the Brosnan Bond movies.

Then with LITTLE or NO explanation we're watching Bond clamber over cranes and through buildings being shot at trying to capture a guy who may look like a man who has spent the best part of his life lying under cars licking exhaust pipes but who happens to be one of the three people in the world who can do that Free Running or Free Jumping or whatever it's called where they leap from roof top to roof top (why a simpleton pipe bomber - his character - would know how to do this is never really explained). It's an excuse for an action sequence.

They got rid of part of what makes Bond fun - the gadgets, the humour and an interesting villain yet kept the gloss, the action and the pointless shots of women in bikinis all shoe horned into what is meant to be a legitimate SPY flick.

They try and make the plot inform the action but this sequence and the plane sequence are all very exciting and have oooh and ahhh factor but this doesn't make a good film neither does it make it relevant to the plot, remember every Brosnan film had exceptional action sequences from the Tank in Goldeneye to the Boat chase in the Bond coloured turd that was The World Is Not Enough but not one of them was a 'good' Bond film (Tomorrow never Dies could have been but they hired Jonathan Pryce).

From the moment the film plunges into Fleming's story, however, it begins to zip along nicely and it's fun watching Bond make a few novice mistakes, try and out psyche Le Chiffre over a poker table, recover from a poison induced heart attack, kill two terrorists, win the game, lose the girl and all culminating in a well realised torture scene.

Then the last 3rd of the movie is odd because the 'love' story between Bond & Vesper never really feels genuine or is overly explained why or how and thus when she is revealed to be in on it all and betrays Bond for her former beau and actually her life, you see it coming a mile off and you don't believe any of it.

The less said about the final fight in the house that falls into the Venice canal the better, because the house is slowly falling into the water as they fight, a lot of good fun moves and exciting action gets obscured by the falling masonry and the loud noise and effects.

Good: The exploration of a spy learning the ropes (when it's actually given room and time to play out) works really nicely and Craig plays it well for a po-faced gorilla browed muscled up chump.

The action sequences are, of course, slick, quick, exciting and fairly inventive, even if the airport sequence feels like an idea they stole from the unused first draft of Die Hard 2.

It doesn't feel long, even at well over 2 hrs, the pace is maintained by the constant changing styles.

The proper 'spy' plot is excellent and when highlighted in the script really works, it should've been the focus. They bury it under a pile of other gubbins and tosh.

The closest relation to this film from the Bond franchise is A Licence to Kill (actually one of my favourites) and Craig is closest to Dalton out of all the actors to play Bond. The difference being at the time people thought Dalton was a mistake and now with hindsight see what a great pair of movies he made (I have heard several critics say this) However everyone is raving about Craig (NOW) but with hindsight of even a day I think they wasted the opportunity to make a really good, watchable, tense Spy thriller out of Bond.

Bad: Ok I am going to start with Craig. For most of this film he struts around looking like the mutant child of The Beckhams and Leonard Nimoy, managing to pout, squint and po-face his way through the film showing all the range of an ikea self-assembly bedroom unit. His Neanderthal forehead makes him look like a steroid enhanced chimp and from the poster to the title sequence to the majority of the film it is unsure whether he is acting or advertising phones, watches, cars, suits, shaving products and speedos. Enough of his swanning about and posturing can he play the part? well yes and no. Yes in the sense that in the action sequences he is lethal, exact and for the most part realistic (Bond gets scars!!! ooooh!) and he plays the effects of a man slowly losing his morality about killing very well. Apart from this we are unsure if he can do humour because - well he's not given any funny lines, really and the few scenes where he's actually required to 'act' he looks awkward and the dialogue is clunky but over all I am not yet comfortable with him in the role. We shall wait and see for the moment I'll give him a 6-10 (would be 7-10 but he pouts too damn much!!)

The biggest culprit here is the director-producers. The film looks TOO Glossy, TOO Much, TOO Shiny. When I saw the film, before it there was that travesty of sell-out shenanigans Nicole Kidman and Baz Luhrman's Chanel advert based loosely on Moulin Rouge which now makes every movie either has ever made suspect and similar to pouring gasoline and dog effluent all over my television and setting fire to it. Plus Nicole Kidman has become a bug, she looks like a cheap praying mantis cgi effect from an episode of Buffy or something. I only mention this vomit inducing pimping of perfume because Casino Royale looks and feels exactly the same. For a start Bond uses a mobile phone every 30 seconds. Without fail and not to remote control a car or electrocute a torturer but to check his text messages. When he's not practicing his predictive text, he's name dropping watch brands for no good reason, talking about and devoting time to an Aston Martin that appears in the movie for 30 seconds (in between two mobile phone checks) why? I still don't know - I know he won it - I know it WAS an iconic Bond car - I don't know why there is screen time devoted to this.

In this movie he also name drops fashion designer names, shows off two more cars, advertises laptops, microsoft, more phones (there seems to be about 3 or 4 between him and Vesper) and prances around infront of a mirror like a big brother contestant in the Cruise wedding bathroom wearing the iconic tux.

Then there's the quality of film they've used, it looks like high-def dv the kind of stock they use for Gillette adverts and the locations they've got look straight out of any number of chocolate/hair dye/deodorant/panty liner advert. I only mention this because it is actually distracting. It actually takes you away from the action or drama because you keep expecting a deep husky voice over to come on intoning the benefits of some new mobile/hairdryer/traction engine combo.

The Actress, Eva Green, who plays Vesper Lynd is woefully uninspiring, neither particularly pretty, a knockout, nor that great an actress. Ok she is better than Terry Hatcher but then, to be fair, I'd be a better Bond Girl than Terry Hatcher. Not that I only have a problem with people's looks in this film but if you are going to direct it like a poor man's Tony Scott (all glitz and glamour no substance), at least cast people who look pretty and can act. Plus in this film there is truth if truth be needed that women ARE more attractive without make up. I just don't buy that even a naive Bond would fall in love with this woman, for personality or looks and surely that's her point in the film.

Conclusion: It's not that I hated this film. It was fine. Watchable, told the story (more or less) but by the same token it wasn't anything special either.

For some reason in the more outlandish bonds (the last 3 Brosnan ones for example) you put up with the product placement, the cheese, the shots of women in bikinis, the sex, the jokes, the unrealistic gadgets, the implausible villains and the inhuman way Bond survives anything and everything without much of a scratch.

When you take away the cosy, camp surroundings, the tongue in cheek one liners and the suspend-realism gadgets you aren't left with too much except the plot of the original books and the characters. So that's what they should have focused on. You don't accept mobile phone adverts and watch makers name dropping in a film that's meant to be hard nosed and gritty.

They chickened out - they should have made a proper film of the book, probably should have set it back in time too, same problem with War of the Worlds which really was a piece of *beep* but no one has faith in their conviction, they want to have their cake and eat it, they want to play poker, show their hand but still win. They want credit for whipping a gritty torture scene and some British bulldog spirit in their amongst the golden lit beaches, the car adverts and Bond's inccesant texting! Well you'd get credit from me and stick to the plot, stick to your guns and make a movie of one of the books, rather than this jumped up, pumped up, po-faced car advert.

And fire That Arnold guy from doing the music AGHHHHH!

And that ending line - the famous line, Craig delivers it like he's ordering beans from a drive through.

Want to see a good, hard nosed, gritty bond that manages a few one liners and some fun as well? Has NO mobile phones and the Bond women are sexy? Has a GENUINELY threatening villain? Then watch Licence To Kill. It's an awesome film - AN AWESOME film.....

Casino Royale is merely ok - 6 out of 10 and that's being generous. (BCIS IMDB)

Is there anyway I can get the time back? It was so boring and drawn out. It was as much a Bond movie as Nemesis was a Star Trek movie.

Perhaps involving Stuart Baird in a successful film franchise is a sure way of hammering nails into the coffin! (frosted IMDB)

Well, I have just finished watching CR for the second time...

I enjoyed the film, though the second time through felt a little slow. The action, the plot, most of the elements (even without Q and Moneypenny) are Bondian, but the actor is not. In Lazenby's case it was due to his inexperience as an actor, whereas in Craig's case, his acting is very good and the problem lies elsewhere. I cannot get over his "more human," gritty-looking Bond.

This is what I feared going in. I was assured that I would like him more once I'd seen him actually take on Bond, but I'm afraid that's not true. One of the primary reasons I'm a Bond fan is because I look up to Bond, I want to be Bond. I don't want an imperfect, gritty Bond with spiky blond hair and a lined face (not intended as an insult, I don't think that DC is unattractive).

Unfortunately (for me and whomever happens to agree with me), DC is the antithesis of my Bond, at least physically and maybe as written in CR. Like I said, I enjoyed the film, but everytime someone said "Bond," I felt like saying "where?" Personally I hope the series returns to its more "campy" roots.

I remain a Bond fan, but I expect that I won't be watching anymore of DC's outings as Bond in theatre. I'll wait for the DVD (or whatever replaces DVDs) on Bond 22 and 23. And to all those who enjoyed CR and DC, I'm happy for you (MF AJB)

I am disappointed. 

But, here you are, for you guys that claim From Russia With Love is the best Bond movie, you've finally come to the point that turned the Bond movie into  "just another spy movie". And as I am aware, most of the fans that post stuff on forums are standing firmly behind this concept.

They took away almost everything that IMO defines an EON Bond movie because CR is a movie that takes us the furthest from Bond as possible and I don't think this is a good thing at all.

Not that I don't think they made a very good job. I think acting wise this was the best Bond movie. I am sure Craig (and the other crew) did 120% of what he was told to do, it's just the concept that I dislike.

And seeing Bond that has a six-pack stomach is plain funny and stupid.
Bond as is would NEVER take his time to go to fitness and "carve" his body. I mean look at the ultimate fighting champions. They are one of the strongest people that are put on TV and yet, the best don't have the six-pack stomach... But now I'm off course....

I really don't watch a Bond movie as a film making masterpiece but for all the other things that make it immensely enjoyable. And they took all this away. I miss Q. I miss Moneypenny, I miss all the funny stuff, I miss ... I MISS BOND!!

Don't take me wrong and don't start any flame wars over this. This is just an opinion of a disappointed fan, that never criticized any of the previous Bonds and likes (treasures) all the 20 previous Bond movies.

As I said. Some (and unfortunately for the others) will be very happy with this kind of Bond, while I, for one, am immensely disappointed. (krisjan MI6)

This is coming from someone who is a huge fan of Bond, from Fleming to Brosnan.

I went to see CASINO ROYALE expecting a great return to the franchise. The movie I got was different from every single other film in the Bond saga aside from maybe LICENCE TO KILL.

First of all, who edited that theatrical trailer? That thing spoiled pretty much everything. Every single action sequence in the movie was in the trailer. So it was disappointing to learn that that crumbling building and Vesper's elevator ride were the last thrill of the movie.

Then comes David Arnold's score. The only soundtrack of his that I liked was TOMORROW NEVER DIES. Ever since then they have gotten too bombastic for my tastes. This one is no exception, except that he restricts the James Bond theme untill the end credits. It's like watching another Kevin McClory Bond production, without SPECTRE.

And I love Fleming as much as the guy next door, but I'll be the first one to admit that there isn't enough material in the CASINO ROYALE novel for anything more than an 50-minute episode of CLIMAX! The producers knew that and decided to open the movie with all kinds of action sequences. What puzzles me... shouldn't these be at the end of the movie? It feels anti-climatic when we open the movie with amazing stunts and end it in a crumbling building, which was already spoiled in the trailers.

Vesper Lynd's death, as far as I remember in the novel, was an aftermath event. It wasn't the climax of the story. So I think the writers missed their chance to shock the audience in a big way. It's like if in OHMSS the climax was Bond and Tracy chasing Blofield in the highway after their wedding. What made Tracy's death effective is that it took place AFTER the climax and when we thought the movie was over. I wonder who would expect CASINO ROYALE to be over after Le Chiffe gets killed... even a 12-year old kid would tell you there is more to come.

I wasn't very keen in the villain either. Especially if you compare him to Peter Lorre in the 50s TV production (or even Orson Welles in the 60s spoof sadly). Mads Mikkelsen's performance just left me cold... he seems to assume that just having a physical deformity will already put him up there with Dr. No.

Valenka tops Karim Dor's character in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE as the weakest henchwoman of the series.

But my biggest problem with the film was Bond's behavior. Daniel Craig is a fine actor and he has potential as Bond, but was hampered  due to some poor choices.

I really don't see in what possible way is his performance true to Fleming's intention. True, he gets the emotional part right and we can see Bond's development in the movie well. But what worried me is his over-the-top toughness. The first 30 minutes of the movie felt to me like TRUE LIES 2. Bond wasn't Bond (from books or movies), he behaved a lot like Steven Seagal or even Chuck Norris. He seems to gain superhuman strength during the action sequences and calculate everything in fractions of a second while all of his surroundings blow up. Craig doesn't have Lazenby's or Dalton's vulnerability (nor the lack of seriousness that Moore, Connery, or Brosnan had) to pull it off, IMO.

And I am sure I was not the only one who thought Bond was too buff. Did we really need all those shots of him emerging from the water as if he was Ursula Andress? He showed more skin in this movie than any bondgirl in history.

But don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike the movie overall at all. I won't waste time mentioning what I liked about it (Vesper, the casino scenes, the torture scene, the action scenes) but for all things, it is an improvement over DIE ANOTHER DAY. It is certainly not amongst the worst Bond movies in my book. But sadly, I wouldn't rank it among the best either.
I need to re-watch it again (and I most certainly will) but for now I will give it *** out of *****.

PS: I hope they keep the series' old format back in the next movie. Gun-barrel and dancing girls in the intro. You can't mess with what's sacred. If you do, you'll end up with a 007 logo grid with 80s calypso music (Icebreaker MI6)

CR is the most overrated James Bond film ever. I’m so annoyed with all the praise given by reviewers for this film. CR is the most boring James Bond film I have ever seen.

I have nothing against Craig but using the first novel as a basis for a reboot is the biggest mistake, Casino Royale should focus on James Bond later in his career not the start.

This is the first time while watching a James Bond film I almost fell asleep.

CR is simply boring and overrated! (Templar Cbn)

Yes, I have been a fan of the series since Goldfinger first came out and I also supported Craig from the beginning, seeing him as a possible savior for the franchise. I came away from the CNB site fuming: why wouldn't they give him a chance, I wondered?

Well now, I'm firmly on the other side, I'm afraid.

The movie was, in my opinion, flawed for a number of reasons:

(1) Trying to hard to be the Bourne Identity ('Bourne, James Bourne?'). Bond should not be gritty and real. We leave that to the other agents in the field. Bond should be callous and cruel and the sadistic streak shown by Connery in the earlier movies showed him to not only use violence but enjoy it, too. Craig's Bond seems to have no motivation. He's in the employ of MI6 and yet doesn't seem motivated by patriotism or career advancement. He's just there.

(2) He also doesn't seem to want take much advantage of the other perk of his job: the ladies. Craig is not sexy (although there's no denying he's buff to the max)and as for suave, fergeddaboutit! There was as much spark between him and Eva Green (inferior sexless Bond girl)as there was between Crockett and his Chinese drug-baron girlfriend in Miami Vice - the Movie (don't they ever audition these stars together to check for romantic attraction?). At least the sex was brief (Brosnan's scenes with girls were always lame).

(3) The credit sequences have been rubbish since Goldeneye but this one, although well-executed: lightweight and definitely un-Bond. The song too was gossamer-thin but I suppose we should have been glad it wasn't Sheryl Crow or Madonna again.

(4) Fight scenes: Nasty and brutal but, once again, not really Bond. Even the violent scrap in the train carriage with Bob Shaw had an elegance to it but Craig is just a running brick with a face. Bond would never be so relentless, either. One of the things that makes Bond is that he doesn't run when he can walk and him taking out villains with a casual gesture or flick of a switch is more lethal than ten miles of free-running or bashing heads into bog cisterns. He just does too much! Less is more...

(5)Craig himself: It's been said before but he's too small and too navvyish. Hated the way a woman buys him his tux (as if JB would ever allow a women to dress him). Dressing well has always been a Bond thing and now we are told that even his impeccable Savile Row grooming isn't even his own idea. Maybe a girl will advise him on his hair colour for B22?

(6)Product placement: 'What watch do you wear, James? Rolex?'. 'Nah, love. It's an Omega'. How we roared. One minute we are told this is a different Bond and the next we get Fedex boxes and Richard bleedin' Branson doing a Hitchcockian cameo. Make your bloody mind up, EON!

Finally, I don't see the point of doing anything with the Bond franchise other than binning it until a suave, sadistic, lady-killing actor with a louche physicality comes along or doing it in animation.
Bond is not supposed to be a detailed character. You unleash him on the baddies, knowing that stuff will get shot and shagged and to feel that rush when the man himself steps into the barrel of the gun. That's what it's about, not getting a Brit to do a Jason Bourne impression. 2/10 (aka cbn)

What did you think of the film?
Lou from Little Britain: Don't like it. Don't like director Martin Campbell's tin ear for dialogue, can't do bread and butter scenes though great with action. Lovely cinematography and locations, but sound levels bad, couldn't hear much of the dialogue.

What about Daniel Craig?
Looks pretty rough in much of the film, didn't like his Bond. A boorish sociopath. Physique like an albino stuffed sausage. Like replacing David Beckham with Wayne Rooney and his most determined, hot and bothered. Some good acting, but he struggles to be cheeky and upbeat.

The other cast?
Le Chiffre was low key, not bad but no one-upmanship rapport with Bond to speak of. Other villains faded into background mostly. Vesper a real character, but relationship with Bond rushed due to hatchet job with editing.

Rating: 001 (N Plural AJB)

I do not like Daniel Craig. He did a good job, but I can't get past his looks, and his dialog delivery reminded me of Timothy Dalton, which is not a good thing.

The scene with Vesper in the shower was quite good (not what you think for those of you who haven't seen the film), but for the rest I thought that she was a shallow imitation of Pussy Galore at first, but without the charm. Her character never quite worked for me.

La Chiffe was very one dimensional. Perhaps this is intentional as he is a minor thug, and not the head of his organization. Still, he didn't strike me as anywhere near as interesting as, say, Dr. No or even Elektra King...

The Ford product placement was a little annoying at first, but it's not like this is a new thing. 007 driving an AMC anyone? The sony placement didn't seem as obvious as in Die Another Day where there were clear shots designed to show nothing other than the p800 for no apparent reason. Then again, I suppose the same could be said for Vesper's digital camera. Grrr. (myrenegade AJB)

I recently went to see Casino Royale with high expectations. When the film was over, everybody was in complete awe and amazement, everybody but me. The thing was, the whole time I felt like I wasn't watching a bond film. I know that this film was the true Bond invented by Ian Fleming but I'm having trouble accepting this. The Bond from the films was this superhero who would never bleed, who had this charm and sophistication. But he's grown into a generic type of hero.

People even think he's better than Sean Connery and surpassed the classic films but I can’t get myself to believe this. The whole film style was different, the title scene, the story, the villains. Everything. If this were the first Bond Film ever made it would certainly be one of my favorite films but, It just isn’t. I hope future bond films don’t become like this either, otherwise oddly uniformed henchmen may never return to this society (EH AJB)
 

I was not only unimpressed I was very irritated and did not like the film at all, namely because of Daniel Craig, he is not my idea of James Bond and so I left the cinema feeling bitterly disappointed. (Britboy MI6)

 
Just saw Casino Royale last night. I have to accept what has been done, ie the casting of Daniel Craig and the increasing use of violence and torture. But I have to ask two things.

Is it really necessary to show such awful torture as in Casino Royale, and Bond in prison, like in Die Another Day? This is not the Bond of the movies, but literary Bond. The cinema audience I was part of was very shocked and quiet, and people walked out shocked and quiet after the movie was over. At least that was my perception.

Secondly, I will always disagree with the producers that a reboot was necessary. Craig isn't bad as Bond, but watching the movie I couldn't help but think 'Brosnan could have done this.' We could have had Brosnan's Bond falling in love with Vesper and after the betrayal, Bond could've just doubled his resolve to never fall in love again.

It wasn't necessary to reboot when Lazenby took over from Connery--it showed an established 007 falling in love with Tracey, crying his tears at the end, and getting on with it. The same could have been done here, with Brosnan. I'll never understand this approach the producers have taken. (Sir Roger MI6)

Sorry, but the guy looks like Gollum's beefed up brother. Won't ever be able to take him seriously as Bond so that's why I will not see it at the cinema or on DVD. Maybe in a few years time when it's shown on telly, I might have a look at it for a laugh. (CIB MI6)
 
Yes, CR is the most boring James Bond film ever!
I still don't like CR and can’t accept it as a James Bond film and not even on par to go against the Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer series.

For a down to earth James Bond film I'll watch FYEO anytime. (Temp Cbn)

Went this past weekend looking forward to a new change to the series. I left there with a bland taste in my mouth. Correct me if im wrong but the Bond series was based on "escaping reality to a fantasy world of gadgets and beautiful women.

So all in all...it seems like it went from this:

before CR:
Bond....James Bond

after CR:
Boring...James Boring (T-man Cbn)

In what universe isn't this the WORST James Bond movie ever?!?! It makes Moonraker look like Shakespeare! Overly long. Simplistic titles with probably the worst Bond song ever and no hot Bond girl silhouettes! Horrible, bald-faced dialoge in awful touchy-feely "what's James Bond really like deep down on the inside" scenes; atrocious action photography; tom boys masquerading as Bond girls! Awful! Just awful!! I had high hopes for this film -- but YUCK!! Where did they spend their money?! Half the movie was like watching World Championship Poker on ESPN. The other half took place in locations that could have been any Hollywood back lot after the initial establishing shots. How do you go to Venice and make it look like an indoor mall?! And what's with Daniel Craig's pin head?! He's got this enormous body with this teeny-tiny little head. Freaky! (Charley IMDB)

I feel your pain, but if you follow IMDB ratings much...almost every new movie is 2-3 points above or below where it ends up resting after a couple months. I suspect the hypsters are having a field day making new accounts trying to pump this and also, I've talked to several people from England who are jubilant that they have a Brit back in the role of Bond and they care of nothing else, despite the mediocre acting, pouting/crying Craig faces, obviously forced facial expressions *trying* to display a distinguished look, endless poker scenes and terrible script that still makes little sense to me (how did winning the the 100+ million in poker suddenly enable the Americans to get the bad guy?). I suspect the rating will settle down to around an even 6.0 after a few months of legitimate and non-hyped ratings. I'd personally rate it a 4/10.

This was simply a not very believable story with a man forcing himself to try and act the Bond part. I went into the theater with very low expectations and those low expectations weren't even met. Worst bond movie so far and Craig was just laughable....still can't get his forced fish lip expressions trying to be distinguished out of my mind, just makes me laugh.

(OZZ IMDB)

Bond is gadgets, Bond is the Bond music, Bond is charismatic charm. This Bond had none of what Bond is...worst Bond movie ever...period.

This movie was an "action" movie with a lead character named James Bond...beyond that, it had little to do with the legacy of Bond and even when we ignore this legacy, this movie wasn't even a remotely entertaining action movie. Half the movie is watching guys play cards. (BK IMDB)

I wonder why people love this Bond movie, too. This is not James Bond. And even if this is not Bond and we accept that, it is not a good movie either. Terrible psychology on a very shallow level. Some really nice jokes and references to former Bond movies, but they are, like this new Bond, crude and lacking in style.

I wanted to see James Bond, beautiful women and British Style. This new Bond is no gentleman and the PLOT of this movie is horrible. Most of the movie is either watching Bond chasing an African on "Speed" and a rather boring and totally funny (I know how to play Poker, but those fakes in the Casino don't for sure) poker scenes.

I am not going to watch another Bond with Craig and that director. (Longasac IMDB)

It seems like the makers are trying to take the Bond series in a new direction, and I don't like it at all. After all, there is already another movie series that lacks significant action scenes with Bourne, but I for one expect Bond movies to eclipse the last one with awesome special effects and action. (Dawnmich IMDB)

My wife and I just watched "Casino Royale" at our local community theatre. I was dismayed, shocked, totally discombobulated! For the first time, I was uncertain as to the goings-on; yes, I know Dame Judi Dench-- she has been "M" for the past three or four Bonds--but frankly, all else aside--oh,man!! WHAT A DISASTER!! First of all, the picture goes against ALL tradition of bonafide James Bond films. Second, it seems to me that the producers/directors were either totally unaware of which way to go with this film or were just plain dull stupid altogether. Yes, the casino scene was way the hell too long and quite frankly I was fuming with loss of patience. There weren't as many action scenes as there tend to be in your average James Bond film (i.e. "For Your Eyes Only" had at least EIGHT major action clips throughout!) I'm afraid 2002's "Die Another Day" and Pierce Brosnan are the last of the JB Collection!!! (vales IMDB)

The movie is a bit too long. The title was bad--we missed the hot Bond girl silhouettes in the title, and the title song was too bland. Too much violence! The lines are not witty. Daniel Craig's body is too big, just tough, but not charming, nor cute. There are no interesting characters. The villain had no character at all. The romance is too long. The plot has holes. And what's all that about the ego? (Joriell IMDB)

I really wasn't expecting much from this film and I wasn't disappointed. I'd also like to add that the love scenes between Green and Craig were so cheesy and drawn out. They seemed rather contrived. I know this movie is suppose to be a pre-quel of sorts but since when does Bond get caught or tortured or fall victim to love and why do we need to see this? It's kinda like Batman not having a plan. It's just another attempt at making Bond more serious, reminiscent of 'License to Kill' with Dalton playing the role. And we all know how long he lasted. All true Bond fans know that the real Bond is the one that was played by Connery or Moore. The type of Bond that could kill you with both his weapons and his wit in all his flirtaceous and womanizing one liner glory. Otherwise what would be the point of watching a Bond movie?, might as well watch the Bourne series instead. (Treach IMDB)

 
Meanwhile where did the $150 million go? It has to be some massive CGI stuff that we can't see (hmmm maybe the sinking building??) which trumps the invisible car IMHO. And that song is just utterly silly. Sounds like 900 other songs I've heard in the past 3 years and those were a bit of drivel.

All I can say now is .. "who are you and what have you done with James Bond.?" (Patryn IMDB)

I just had to agree that this movie was crap, and that man is NOT James Bond to me. I believe that as months go by, the hype will die down (anything fresh and new is often blindly deemed "good" due to the initial excitement), and many who loved it will come to an understanding of multiple reasons why the movie just isn't that great. (danessaturday IMDB)

In my opinion it was definitely not the best Bond of all time as it is often claimed. On the other hand it wasn't the worst.

But whenever I reach a point when I'm sitting in the cinema and think "Oh my god, please let this film end now" there must have been something wrong with it. (WSB IMDB)

This is the worst Bond flick ever. This isn't even a Bond film, it's just an action movie with Bond's name on it, just like Mann's "Miami Vice". What calls it a Bond film is with the good old Bond formula featuring such things as Q and his gadgets (no matter how implausible the tend to get), the hot girls who are everywhere and including in the pretitles, the few minutes of dialogue and action between Bond and Moneypenny, the plot which actually makes sense and has a meaning (also no matter how implausible it is), the fact that most of the time Bond kills the villain himself at the complete end of the film followed by a witty quip where he then escapes with the girl to only complete his conquest with her while MI6 is trying to locate Bond, and the infamous gun barrel sequence followed by an awesome pre-credit sequence... none which this film has. And I know, it's a prequel, Bond begins, blah blah blah. Isn't that cliched by itself? You've already got tons of movies that have gone to the "Begins" thing, such as "Batman Begins", and other crappy prequels like the Star Wars Episodes.

And I don't see why people are all for 'reality' movies. If you want reality, then get a camcorder and tape your life. I go to the movies to get away from reality, not to sit through two hours of cheesy psychological crap and high elegant ESPN Poker Tournaments. I go to see Bond, the real Bond. Not some guy who rampages around like Jason Bourne. I like the Bournes for what they are. I like the Bonds for what they are. Why do they have to go and try to mix the two? Why not just bring back the classic Bond in the style of "For Your Eyes Only" or  "The Living Daylights"? "FYEO" was down to earth and somewhat gritty, but it had tons of action and wonderful humor in it that made it one of the best Bond flicks around. Some of the humor may have been totally 'out there', but a lot of it fit the scenes. These kind of scenes helped to create a great Bond film, but that was lacking during "Casino Royale".

But what really blew me over during the film was the hopped up bombmaker when he was chased in Madagascar. What the hell was that guy on? The only time I've seen someone run like that was in a scene during Rocky.
All in all, I enjoyed Brosnan's Bond. I grew up with his Bond. His movies may be implausible, but they were as enjoyable to watch as most of Moore's films. I can get used to Craig, even with his grotesque Schwarzennegger body, but I can not get used to this film. I can just cry at how pitiful and embarrassing it is. The producers have really screwed this one up. I just hope that the next film WILL NOT be a continuation of "CR" and that we'll be able to return to what really makes Bond, Bond.

Casino Royale sucks, period. They tried their change, but it fell flat. Bring back Bond and leave Bourne out of it. End of story.  (GEC 2 IMDB)

My apologies to the millions of people who enjoyed this movie. It sucks - comprehensively. Craig was a risky, but, terrible choice. Woody Allen was more credible in the original "Casino Royale"(and at 70+ would still be a better choice than Craig). Physically, he's ugly and brawny and cannot convey intellect or wit. The thing that makes James Bond James Bond is that he is smarter than everyone else. He makes it a point to be expert at everything from wine to obscure scientific knowledge. Craig has none of that going on. The point has been made that this is a prequel, and takes place before Bond has acquired his polish. Fair enough, but, Craig, at 39, is much, much too old for that. I kept wondering Why it took him so long just to get his "00". Obviously, it's because he isn't that bright or talented.

Beyond Craig's shortcomings, the filmmakers strain to rid the film of everything that makes a Bond film a Bond film. No sex, no wit and no music makes this just an ordinary crime story. Current television crime shows like "CSI" are smarter and sexier than "Casino Royale", so why bother going to see a Daniel Craig sleuth movie. The character is named James Bond, but, this is not a "Bond" film. Pulp like "The Transporter" is much more "James Bond" than "Casino Royale's" sub-ordinary tedium.

Last point: "Dark and Edgy" was interesting for about 2 seconds in the 1980's. It is now the tiredest cliche in the history of literature and film and it is long since time when hack writers and directors should be praised for their thoughtless, unoriginal repetition of the "style".  (SASS IMDB)

He has the action-hero physique, but there is no charm and elegance. (M Flatley IMDB)



 
 

HOME

FORUM