Tales From The Darkside
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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
"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)
is coming from someone who is a huge fan of Bond, from Fleming to
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
CR is simply boring and overrated!
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
(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
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
Rating: 001 (N Plural
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
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.
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
either, otherwise oddly uniformed henchmen may never return to this
society (EH AJB)
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
and not even on par to go against the Jason Bourne or Jack
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:
Boring...James Boring (T-man
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
has the action-hero physique, but there is no charm and elegance. (M Flatley IMDB)