More Tales From The Darkside
Craig is not the suave but
deadly lady killer that is the soul of the cinematic James Bond. Why do
the idiots in charge of the movie franchise feel obliged to shove this
lumpy troll down our throats and call him 007? "Oh, but it's such a
good movie" Well "good" is subjective (and I'm being very nice here)
but this is just not a James Bond movie no matter how you slice it. (TM Yahoo)
I, a CR naysayer shall post a review, it may seem familiar because it's
similar to the one I posted over in another thread.
1. M's a HYPOCRITE ("Bond, you're a relic of the cold war"/"Damn, I
miss the cold war!") Plus she swears more than every other character in
the movie combined. She's also mean, annoying and a total divergence
from the previous character. If they're going to totally change the
character, just get a new M to make it slightly less confusing. By the
way Dame Judi, you're a wonderful actress, but get a better hair
2. The poker sequence. Will it ever end? Maybe? Probably? Not
particularly. I know they're trying to say it wasn't just one game, but
we all knew the final outcome, Bond wins.
3. The reviewers say "Gone are the smirky days of Moore and Brosnan". I
must beg to differ, this man was VERY wisecracky, though Craig was an
adequate Bond, he made many self-referencing jokes and others. The
whole carpet beater sequence, which is painful to think of was turned
into a joke.
"Now the world will know you scratched my balls!"
Not even Roger Moore went there.
4. The worst villains. The boring Le Chiffre and the Moopy Henchmen
Brigade. While the film was in development, I saw many of the
characters top-billed, like Dimitrios, Obanno, Solange, Valenka, etc.
However, we meet them for about two minutes, and they're dead. Did
Valenka ever actually speak? No. The most boring crop of henchmen and
villains to date. Le Chiffre bled tears, he also had this irritating
sourpuss expression on his face all the time that drove me insane! I
know it's his first assignment and the threat won't be as large, but
can't there be a teeny-tiny presence of a threat?
5. The pre-titles, titles and song.
First, film noir, very dark and gritty feel to the whole opening
sequence by Bond's actions and his dealings with Bond's 2nd Kill are
very cold. Suddenly, we cut to a gunbarrel with cartoony blood, the
crappiest song in a Bond film to date (Yes, Madonna and Lulu, you are
no longer reviled as the worst singers of a theme, Mr. Chris Cornell
has now been awarded that honor, as the song is not hummable and very
forgettable, it also never says Casino Royale) All Time High didn't do
that either but at least that's a hummable tune (plus, how could you
fit Octopussy in a song without someone getting angry?).
6. The confusing and disheartening ending
Very unsatisfying. Vesper and Bond are all lovey-dovey and some guy who
needs to get his sunglasses repaired shows up with a few moops to get
the money (the access codes, physical money?) from her. Also, the
building collapses for some reason, I know he shot the ballistas but no
one was actually aware of what was happening. People die, Vesper goes
down, Vesper acts like there's no water, cuddles with Bond, backs into
the elevator and kills herself for some odd reason. Was she fearing
she'd be tracked down? Could she not face Bond after betraying him? Who
knows. Craig has an amazing amount of lung capacity and drags her up
there. Mr. White. Bond, James Bond.
They kept happening, it's late now so I won't go into them.
The best sequence was in Uganda with the crazy acrobatic guy, very well
I know they're going in a radically different direction, and this movie
was a bit Licence To Kill for me, which to me of course, is a negative
thing. Hopefully they can pick up the pieces for Bond 22. (JFF AJB)
MY CASINO ROYALE REVIEW
Bond has been soiled in the latest film and this represents a
fundamental reorganisation of the character.
Although Bond has always had a reputation as a womaniser, I don't think
I can ever remember him actually bedding a married woman in any of the
films. My impression is that almost all of the sex he has while on a
mission is in the line of duty and to get information. In Casino Royale
he seems to be doing the same thing when he seduces Solange. However
that scene and the banter with Vesper later on about her not being his
type: single - gives the impression that he actually does sleep with
married women for pleasure.
The earlier Bond films are able to create the psychological illusion
that Bond is morally above reproach because he only kills those who are
themselves professional killers. This is actually stated by him in
conversation with Scaramanga in TMWTGG. This illusion is necessary in
the action-romance context of Bond films - the reality of being an
assassin must never be introduced. People who kill, for whatever
reason, damage themselves spiritually and morally, no matter how noble
their intentions. In Casino Royale the writers have gone into this
dangerous territory and again Bond has been left soiled.
Psychology, as I have often said before, has been the bane of Bond. The
only way that he can survive is in a cinematic universe where his
character is not probed too deeply because the contradictions between
the world of romance and reality are enough to destroy him.
A glamorous, charming, devil-may-care assassin is a psychological
contradiction. Bond is similar to Hannibal Lecter in this respect - a
charming, sophisticated, self aware, articulate cannibal. Such
creatures can only exist in the world of art (film) where anything is
And that is what I have always loved about Bond. Anything is possible.
The gadgets, the plots, the characters - all are the stuff of fantasy
and every explosion is like a beautiful orange flower blossoming on the
silver screen. There is excitement without terror, sex without sin,
violence without judgement, action without consideration. We go to the
movies to see Bond to be free of the limits of everyday life - Casino
Royale puts too much reality into the mix and has brought Bond down
from the stratosphere where be belongs. Give him back the gadgets, the
over the top villains, the crazy plots to take over the world. Use just
enough reality to make the fantasy plausible if not possible. And stay
out of Bond's head or his demise will be at the hands of his own
writers. (Delicious AJB)
unimpressed with the murky plot. The movie was too long for the weak
story. The next film definitely will need Moneypenny & Q. The
construction site action in the entry was a bit derivative of the
Continuing the franchise in a new direction will be rather difficult.
Better screenwriting is the answer. An effort should be made to avoid
redoing past Bond derring do. The new films should avoid underwater
sequences, ski chases and space flight, space satellites or laser
beams. New vehicular stunts and locations should be tried. For example,
has Bond ever been to Canada? Or Antarctica? Or Poland? Finland?
Northern Ireland? Akron?
Snowmobiles, snowcats, superbikes, ATVs, Liebherr mining trucks,
skateboards, etc...have been underused/not used at all, and should be
up for consideration.
Realistic contemporary villains should be based upon realworld
terrorists, criminal gangs, paramilitary death squads &
war criminals. If Bond is really ex-SAS, then maybe he has experience
hunting the IRA???
I was eager to see Casino Royale only because it was a
James Bond film and I was curious to see what Daniel Craig would do in
the role. I was very disappointed. Casino Royale made absolutley no
sense. If this is supposed to take place before James was a 00 agent,
why is Judi Dench playing M? (and acting a bit more stuck up than
normal). Can anyone picture Dr. No coming after this timewise? It makes
no sense. James hops around a construction site like an ape searching
for a mysterious man, who he shoots right in the chest instead of what
he was suposed to do. I remember a torture scene which was
not Bond film worthy, but trash can worthy (the guy hit his balls with
a rope many times). The film ends with James shooting an oldguy (Mr.
White, I guess) in the knee and then saying "Bond....James Bond". I
give Casino Royale a two-thumbs down. I realisethe classic
James Bond films I love are far in the past. My favorite actors for
James Bond (in order from greatest to least) are Sean Connery (although
I hated Never Say Never Again), Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce
Brosnan, George Lazenby, the last AND least, Daniel
Craig. I hope he is fired from the role soon. (Lux IMDB)
Sure, he's human and all but who really cared for James in CR?
I didn't really. 007 was an unsympathetic, ugly and psychotic character
who deserved all M's bashings. He fell in love but didn't deserve to
and even the villain had a more likeable apperance. Craig is good, but
he did a 007 stoneface that I just didn't care for. And I will always
feel that smashing the bad guys lair with the aid of an invisible car,
IS MORE FUN TO WATCH than two guys playing poker for an hour. As much
as Thunderball was a movie about diving, CR was a movie about playing
poker and there may be purists out there who feel that this is what 007
should do with his time, but I seriously doubt that the audience will
care much for 007 if this is to continue. CR was a good film, but if
you like Bond for what he's become (that is to say, if you like the
essential trademarks of movie franchise) you might feel sad over this.
I for one think it's aggravating that the decision to scratch/reboot
the series hasn't been more loudly debated. Everybody just seems to
think this is all right, as if nobody cares about the frenchise
anyway. I happened to like the gun barrell-sequence and staples, but
knows if we'll ever to see the return of a Bond film that delivers
escapsim rather than realism. (Rev
Bond really didn't seem like Bond in this movie, it seemed like all the
other characters were cooler than he was. Knowing that this was kind of
a prequel made it a little more understanable. I still think they could
have done a better job of portraying him as novice to the spy business.
Still there were a lot of cheesy lines, I was embarrassed for him on
many occasions. I was disappointed in the lack of decent gadgets. Most
of the things he did I could do myself from stuff I got at radio shack.
Oooh he used a sim card reader to look at the guys messages. I know it
is 2006 and all but come on, couldn't they come up with something
The movie was way too long and confusing. The poker went on forever
with no real point. There were a number of other scenes that could have
been deleted or shortened as well. It seemed like they tried to get all
the special effects in at the expense of the story, not uncommon in the
movies these days. I found myself just wishing the movie would end
after what felt like 2 hours. (MCM
Craig might be the worst of the Bonds. Some
liken him to Connery, but let's think about that. Connery was the
epitome of cool. Women wanted him and men wanted to be him. Most people
do not want to be like fish face Craig. He's a fine actor but he really
didn't get cinematic Bond right. Perhaps the most accurate Bond has
been Dalton. He was gritty, but he wasn't boring and he was still cool.
Moore was at times arrogant and unbelievable, but he brought humor to
the role. Even Lazenby had a coolness to him. Brosnan had a better
balance of character traits in his protrayal. We will see though, if
given a better script and more time if Craig can get it right.
The new movie was questionable in many ways. The scene with the airport
and the tanker was too Moonraker-esque, it just looked and felt bad. In
addition, something about SONY films just feels synthetic and
disconnected. I can't put my finger on it but it's true. Yes, Die
Another Day was pretty bad, but why should Bond have to reboot rather
that just fix the problem areas? When they rebooted him they might have
gotten it all wrong. I think, Bond should at least be taken back to the
Dalton days and the series should show at least some repect for
Remember, Bond is not the longest lasting movie series because it has
followed the crowd. Why should Bond be like Jason Bourne, let Jason
Bourne be like himself. And please let Bond be what he always
has. Most go
see a Bond movie for at least some escape from reality. I am also
willing to bet that many male viewers
have traditionally wanted to live like and be like Bond. However, I do
not feel that anyone wants to be like Craig or live the life of the
Bond he portrays. I actually felt miserable after seeing Casino Royale.
Finally, I think that all Bond fans would like to see some return to
the rich tradition of the movies we have fell in love with. I have seen
every Bond movie and like most of them and have seen them multiple
times. But I can't imagine watching this movie many more times. (JDodson IMDB)
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 many
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 Brosnan had the role
down and displayed it quite perfectly in their own style. Connery was a
very original type of Bond, Lazenby was a suitable replacement, but
since he one did one Bond movie you can't really judge
Roger Moore had a more comical personality of Bond while Dalton
portrayed a more literary sense of Bond. Brosnan was a
of Connery and Moore. 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 Brosnan, 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! (JLA
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 script 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 script 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. (Jeppie
one dreary experience for a long time James Bond fan. The slow
pace between action sequences was particulary tedious. I
supposed to get into the psyche of 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. The 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. (CJ
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 007 list, way at the
bottom. If you must see this it will only enforce how good Connery and
Moore were in this role.
Hopefully the 1st and last bond movie he ever does. (OB Yahoo)
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 cast him were on something. Everyone
007 is a tall, dark haired, 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
I wasn't impressed either. Craig still doesn't "look" the part of Bond
to me. Say what you will about Brosnan's Bond, but he at least had the
right look. What sets Bond apart from the Jason Bournes, Jack Ryans,
and Jack Bauers is that he does what he does with aplomb, style, and
polish. And I just can't imagine every woman who sees Craig's Bond
would be instantly swept away by his looks, charm, and charisma -- he
looked terribly ill at ease in the romantic scenes (was really great in
the action ones), and frankly has a smile that would scare small
I had other smaller nitpicks. The poker scenes went on way too long,
and were fairly boring, at least to me. I was looking forward to some
swanky, sexy, old-school Bond casino scenes... and instead they were
pretty blah. I didn't understand why it was essential to have the CIA
and MI6 participating in the game -- why not just nab the baddie before
the game and before he can win and fund more terrorism? What additional
crimes had he committed after the game that allowed the CIA to pick him
up? Also, why are they playing Texas Hold 'Em in Montenegro? It just
seemed like the series was trying to milk the big Texas Hold 'Em craze.
I love Judi Dench, but it makes little sense continuity wise (and I
know this is a franchise that isn't heavy on continuity) that in
GoldenEye a big fuss was made about how Judi's M was new to the job and
didn't like the Cold War relic that Bond represented... only to have
her be the one who promoted Bond. I missed Q and Moneypenny, especially
Moneypenny. Her scenes with Bond are usually some of my favorites in
the series. Q can be a bit over the top at times, but I like the
gadgets. (Owl MI6)
disappointed, too. I'm not sure where her character was supposed to be
from -- her accent at times sounded almost South African. She's very
pretty, but that's about it. I thought the shower scene where Bond
sucked on Vesper's fingers was pretty lame and if it was supposed to be
sexy, well, that was lost on me. All of the post-torture hospital
scenes were silly -- so silly I was sure it had to be a dream sequence.
Bond had heard Vesper scream, yet there she was without a scratch on
her... and he bought it.
So, yes, I wasn't impressed in this movie, but hopefully a lot of what
I didn't like about it will be fixed by the next one (though I'm not
sure I'll ever find Craig a convincing Bond). I know this is a
"beginnings" tale and a re-boot of the series, but I sort of liked to
imagine Bond was always cool and suave.
Yes, Daniel Craig,
is ugly. His acting was strong, but he doesn't look like
movie dragged on and on without anything happening. It's not fun to
watch Craig pretend to be James Bond. (GL Yahoo)
anything but Bond! Craig looks like russian mobster or hitman rather
then educated, eloquent, classy Bond. I'll not go and watch another
Bond. Producers have tarnished years of Bond history by making this
horrible decision. Don't go! (Bart
easily the worst Bond film I've seen. But rather than rant aimlessly, I
thought I'd provide a very clear list of just why it disappoints so
Like plether slippers, this isn't off the back of a cow. Fake, like
imitations, initially feels good, then fades leaving a bad taste.
It does NOT have:
real Bond girls.
a story where the world is in danger, just $150 million measly dollars,
silly really without impending doom.
A bad guy or better yet a bad girl.
It does have:
- one very muscular advertisement for 24 hour fitness
- one non-intelligent James Bond
- one non-slick double O that seems more like a rogue double O than a
- one uninspired senseless story that is not good
- the opening scene is really the PS3 game on screen, Mario Brothers
does it better
a good action film, but NOT, by any imaginative or creative way, a Bond
movie. (ZZ Yahoo)
Confusing plot. I don't expect much from a Bond film. But, I do expect
to understand the main purpose of what Bond's work is. The vague goal
stopping terrorism is the closest thing given.
2. No clear villain. Literally, you aren't told who the main bad guy in
the movie is until the last 5 minutes. Until then, you watch a number
of bad guys die off. Very frustrating.
3. Bond falls in love. Bond doesn't love, he lusts. And, even if he
does by chance, he certainly doesn't admit to it and say it out loud.
4. Meaningless action sequences. The action is good. But, too often
long action sequences come before an explanation of what exactly
6. Weak climax. In the last key scene of the movie, Bond chases the
woman he's fallen in love with and a bunch of bad guys. Who are the bad
guys? You don't know. Is she bad? Kind of, but not really. The action
focuses heavily on the collapse of an entire building in Venice, but
the building is of no significance. The bad guys die (of course, not
the real bad guys), but Bond doesn't know why he killed them. Awful.
5. Far too serious. There are a few lighthearted moments. But very few.
This Bond is just not as fun as previous ones.
6. Too long. At 2 1/2 hours, it's the longest Bond movie I've seen.
And, you really feel it.
7. No gadgets. A Bond staple that has been suprisingly discarded. To
re-iterate, this Bond is not that fun.
8. Weak opening song. Some lame rock song that doesn't fit the Bond
9. Weak product placement. Bond drives a Ford sedan in an early scene.
Come on. Next he'll be checking into a Holiday Inn and flying Southwest.
10. Rarely used gimmick. It's called Casino Royale. But, only 20
minutes of the movie, right in the middle of it, are spent in the
casino. And, the plot really doesn't have much to do with the casino,
it's just a place where a particular poker game is played. And, I have
to mention, the end of the poker game displayed some of the most
ridiculous hands ever recorded on film. (Rinconen Yahoo)
ironic that the last Casino Royale was a spoof. This one is a joke. I
won't bore you with the details.
1 - Opening Music and Credits suck
2 - Bond is no Bond, he blows
3 - Story barely OK
4 - Action Sequences are crap
5 - No hot chicks
6 - No Q
7 - Great car destroyed in 5 seconds
8 - No fancy
hardware (Muddit Yahoo)
want plot points read the other 10,000 reviews...just know that anyone
who is a fan of the character of James Bond could NOT POSSIBLY like
this movie. It would be like taking Han Solo and making him a polite
and wimpy butler and calling it a reboot of Star Wars. (I know thats a
nerdy analogy) but it makes my point. This is not James Bond-- He isn't
cool, he isn't smooth, and he is in NO WAY charismatic. Without those
qualities there is no BOND. Craig looks like a bad guy if you ask me
and ruined (through his casting which really is no fault of his own)
the idea of one of the most iconic characters of all time. Thats the
main reason for my low grade. This isn't James Bond and it isn't as
good as the Jason Bourne films so what is the point? Anyone can make a
spy flick-- it takes a special bunch of morons to ruin Bond. Save your
8 bucks. (Alec Yahoo)
here's the deal:
looks old (Twister Yahoo)
If you expect this to be a James Bond movie like all the others, you'll
be sorely disappointed. This James Bond breaks with the tradition of
suave and cool; instead, he is a homicidal maniac with serious mental
problems. Worse, he's not even likable, has no chemistry with women
(which makes you wonder what his preference really is), and has no
sense of humor at all.
watched all the James Bonds and this one will go down as the worst
ever. Sorely disappointed. (Robert
fans will want to puke. Bond does not drive a Ford. Bond is not a
blond-haired. Sony cut the budget down to the point that the
whole film was in a casino set! We were so disappointed. Don't go. My
girl wants Clive or Pierce. I just want some semblance of Bond, James
Bond. (Hotfunk Yahoo)
STUDIO HYPE. Very uninspired and sometimes laughably boring. Some of
the screenplay was horrific. DEFINITELY not worth seeing. Just too
boring. Not worth the money or the time to watch this movie. (Ral Yahoo)
James Bond has been a staple in our household these 40 years
character changes. This is by far the worst Bond of the bunch even
eclipsing Roger Moore's more feeble efforts. We found this Bond to be
more like an automaton, very plastic with very little human qualities
or intelligent bantering as of old. Simply leaping about does not a
Bond make. (Root Yahoo)
that Daniel Craig is a capable actor but he was not well cast or did
not do a good job of playing Bond. There's a big difference between
cool and cold. This Bond is a thug in good clothes! The story was
convoluted and not very interesting. It was very un-Bond like in its
violence and blood. Where's the suave and charm? (K Barkley Yahoo)
critics are falling all over themselves congratulating the producers of
this new Bond movie for reinventing Bond. They didn't reinvent him.
They did a character transplant from The Bourne Identity.
The critics suddenly find that everything that made all the old Bond
movies fun is now passe. Gone is the tongue in cheek humor, the gee
whiz gadgets, the hot babes with ridiculously suggestive names. A
series that didn't ask to be taken seriously, only enjoyed, now is
asked to be great art. I don't recall the critics giving Brosnan a hard
time before Craig came along.
We have a Bond who is coarse and rough looking with big ears
and beady eyes. But he has muscles and that is supposed to be a
breakthrough. Perhaps he is meant to be a Bond prototype that needs
polishing before the suave, self-assured, and sophisticated spy emerges.
I hope the fun returns in the next installment. Not that this was a bad
movie. It was enjoyable but a bit long. I would have preferred to see
more Solange and less Vesper but that is a matter of taste. I also
liked some of the more intellectual and philosophical bantering, though
it needed more wit.
The story is almost incomprehensible but the action set pieces were
All in all, you don't mess with a long tradition. Sherlock Holmes does
not solve crimes with fist fights and gadgets. You don't make Sherlock
Holmes into Columbo and you don't make Bond, James Bond into Jason
Bourne. (Gerry Yahoo)
a huge James bond fan, growing up I watched them with my father and my
uncles, but unfortunately I won’t viewing Casino Royale ever
again.They murdered a Classic franchise.
1) No Q
2) No gadgets
3) Craig throughout the film had on khakis and a polo shirt????
4) Movie seemed cheap, I’m not sure what it was, the set, the
5) A 45-minute card game, are you kidding me? If I wanted to watch
Texas Hold em’, I would go to my drunk neighbors house.
6) Why was Craig all buffed up, James Bond is not a body builder!
7) Come on the movie took place in Miami, where are all the exotic
This movie was filled with product placement, which is easy for me to
spot. He was driving a New Ford Focus, then at the Ocean Club he parked
a New Range Rover sport, during the chase seen when he flips the Aston
Martin the car he is chasing is a jaguar. ALL OWNED BY
Weak film, what a waste of my time. (MH Yahoo)
Mr BEEFY Craig is anything but BOND! (Amaract Yahoo)
this movie had not supposedly been a James Bond
movie, it would have been quite acceptable. Plenty of action, plot,
mystery and intrigue.
But......and this is the whole problem.....Daniel Craig is not a
credible "James Bond". Not that he is a bad actor, he
is just not the James Bond type. While Sean Connery, Roger Moore and
Pierce Brosnan have made it difficult for anyone to follow in their
footsteps, Daniel Craig has fallen way short of the target and in my
opinion has to be considered tied with the last place contender George
Lazenby. Except for the casino scenes where he wore a tuxedo, his dress
was uncharacteristically tacky. The humor was
lacking. The way he held himself, was almost as though he was posing
for a mens underwear advertisment. His looks were more of a baddie than
of a James Bond mans/ladies man. (Mitch
The first movie I remember Daniel Craig in was "Layer Cake". I didn't
like his monotone voice then, and it's even worse in Casino Royale! The
women of the world may like his looks, but he certainly doesn't play
Bond well at all! Casino Royale seemed more like a low budget knock-off
of other Bond movies. I was not entranced in the least bit. This movie
could have ended at any one of several points and not been any worse. (Trans Yahoo)
looked forward to this movie and thought Daniel Craig would make a good
Bond. I was pissed when Brosnan was passed over for Dalton in the 80's.
I was even more pissed when I heard he was fired after only making a
few Bond's. I know most on here loved the movie and it's similarities
to Ian Fleming's novels. I admire if that is what they were going for
here. My problem is the James Bond of the movies has always been a
different 007. In my opinion it was too long with not enough substance.
Who was the lead Villian? Everytime I thought I knew they ended up
getting killed. There was no clear cut lead villian with a master plan
to rule the world, just a bunch of low level hoods trying to get rich.
I missed all the gadgets, the tricked out Bond cars and the witty humor
all the previous Bond's brought to the character. The only time I
remembered laughing throughout the movie was when Bond was tortured and
the taunts he gave his captor. The excessive bloodshed showed for the
first time that Bond was a real person and not a cartoon. But tell me,
who cleans up that fast from a beating like those he endured? I have
seen every Bond film since Moonraker in the Theater and this is the
only one I have truly wished I'd waited for it on DVD. I should not
have gone to see this after Thanksgiving dinner as the tryptophan had
worn off but the movie was still putting me to sleep instead. In my
opinion, this was not Bond's finest day. Hope the next one is
Bond's Identity Theft....
The fact that Bond arrived on the scene sporting a gadgetless Ford and
had to be saved twice by his treasonous girlfriend was only the
beginning of this imposter of a Bond movie.
I was extremely disappointed that the arrogant, womanizing, gadget
loving, one-liner spouting Bond that we all know and love was no where
to be found in Casino Royale.
This movie has removed Bond from being a envied ladies man into a
politically correct, emotional, wuss (for lack of a better term). His
spouting of love for the leading lady and his intention to give up his
career for her made me nauseous.
And don't even get me started on the lack of any discernable timeline
in the Bond series. If this was the beginning of Bond and his
achievement of 00 status then shouldn't we have been taken back to
somewhere in the early sixties???
I have seen and own every James Bond movie made, up to and including
Goldeneye - The Secret Life of Ian Fleming - The Real James Bond and I
have to say that I will not be purchasing this movie because I feel
that it is a degredation to everything that James Bond is. I have to
wonder if any of the writers of this movie have ever even seen a Bond
movie. How is it possible to have a James Bond movie without Q, without
Money Penny, without any real gadgets of any kind?
The producers wanted to make a movie with a "more believable" Bond...
WHY??? We love James Bond because he is unbelieveable!! We love to
watch him do the impossible and look good doing it. Casino Royale has
taken the very staples of James Bond and left us with well.... not
So... do yourself a favor, save your $9.50 and the 2 hours and 24
minutes of your life and don't bother seeing this movie. If you feel
like you absolutely need to see it for yourself at least wait until it
comes out on DVD and only waste a couple dollars to rent it! (Irish
What a disappointment!! This guy was unsure of himself. He didn't have
the audacity associated with the original character. (OC Yahoo)
We went to see CR today. It was not what we expected. The magic is
gone. What made Bond special is MIA too. Needless to say we did not
enjoy the experiment and will not be back if another gritty toilet bowl
movie is produced.
I noticed most of the praise for Craig is from people who do put down
the movies. I’m sorry this Bond is not for us, what made the
movies interesting is gone, this was a boring action film that
missed in a lot of places & the
action available in other
movies is done
much better. (DJ Yahoo)
I found the new James Bond movie disturbing. The previous James Bond
movies were fun and entertaining to watch.
I was totally unprepared for one of the disturbing scenes in the new
James Bond movie. I'm not going to give the plot away, but let me say I
went in expecting to have fun, and I came out feeling cheated and
The acting was fine. I didn't like the pacing of the movie, however. It
started out with a long sequence of action scenes that went so fast I
couldn't tell what was happening...I can't even "see" that fast! This
caused my mind to wander, and made me feel restless.
I like a good action scene, but I like to be able to follow the action.
Also, the movie departs so far from the traditional James Bond
"promise"... this is one of the reasons I felt cheated. James Bond
doesn't fall in love. James Bond doesn't say "I love you" to any woman.
James Bond also usually escapes impossible situations and braves
incredible dangers without ever causing me, the audience, to feel like
I am being brutalized. However this James Bond movie breaks all of
those rules. That's why I feel cheated.
Also, although the new James Bond is a good actor and seems to be in
great physical shape, he just doesn't have that "chick magnet" affect
that James Bond is supposed to have. Perhaps the new James Bond is
being created for a male audience... (MMF Yahoo)
As a baby boomer, I grew up getting to know the persona of James Bond,
the character, one film release at a time. I knew him as a true lady's
man who never failed. His duty was always to his country and honor.
Throughout his capers, a dignified gentleman prevailed.
The script of the 2006 installment of Casino Royale was an insult. A
disgrace to the image of the Bond we know and expect. The
cinematography and acting were outstanding. The screen writer should be
sued. In fact, I'd be first in line to spearhead a class action against
the screen writer. For litigation info contact Herb at:
(Warning:Plot spoiler)I really didn't care for this latest Bond film.
The first disappointment was not seeing the "signature" grand opening
stunts seen in previous 007 flicks. The plot was hard to follow, the
new James Bond was bumbling and arrogant, and, Gulp!... He falls in
Love....Yuck. I would call this the "Anti-Bond" movie. (Honest Yahoo)
Daniel Craig? The best Bond since Brosnan! He wasn't as bad as I feared
but he's still below my three favourite Bonds; Connery, Brosnan and
Moore. (Dan Same AJB)
Worst Bond movie ever.....
Worst title sequence & music, worst Bond, worst Bond
Bond upsets boss, loses loads of money at poker (classy!), gets
poisoned, breaks defibrillator, crashes car, gets tortured and spends
ages in hospital. More Blonde than Bond.
I'll stick with the old Bonds until the production team and Blonde
changes. Sooner rather than later I hope.
The over-hype won't work for the next movie! (PBH AJB)
James Bond, a movie for people who love action, gadgets, fast cars, and
disposible women. But this year I faced one of the biggest let-downs of
my life as a James Bond fan. Casino Royale took everything you would
never find in a James Bond movie and threw it right in. The action in
this movie is short and non-suspenseful. Usually James Bond is a
stealthy individual who can find his way around a building without ever
knowing anthing about it. The new James Bond is a Bond with no sense of
direction and is about as stealthy as a fat man behind a skinny tree.
Another thing that got to me is the ENTIRE LACK of gadgets. There were
none, plain and simple. No gadgets. No Q. Along with Q, Moneypenny
dropped the James Bond gig (probably because she knew this was going to
be terrible). After the opening scene James must travel to another
location in which he would usually travel in extreme style (mercedes,
aston martin, BMW, etc...) but this James has no taste or respect for
fine cars. The British agent prefers to travel in an American car... a
Ford. The most affordable, everyone has one, Ford (not very classy).
Then after he gets a good car and we finally get to a chase scene its
not only over as fast as it began but he trashes the car, in ten
seconds flat. But aside from this distasteful presentation the thing
that got to me the most is the fact that James Bond is a completely
changed man. This movie for me was the beginning of the end, and an all
out slaughter and mockery of the James Bond name. (Shack Yahoo)
Geez, after getting kicked in the nads, it is amazing how quickly James
recovered. This movie was tedious and boring. What happened to boys
with toys? I mean snooze alert. Where was the fun? I see cuter girls
walking down the street than these latest Bond chicks. To the
producers, pick some hot chicks next time.
This was certainly the most clueless James Bond of all time. James
couldn't read the "tell" of his new love interest. Turns out she
betrayed him to save her brother. What happened to the end of the world
stakes to this franchise?
So James saves a plane on a runway from being blown up so that the
airlines stock wouldn't go down screwing the financial planner of the
world's terrorists? Oh big whoop. How about seizing the bank accounts
of these morons?
That had to be the most boring hold'em game in the world. There's more
excitement on ESPN's World Series of Poker. (CL Yahoo)
He looked more like a butcher at the grocery store than a top level spy.
He wasn't too smart. We have local call girls that could steal this
Bond's heart and money in less time than it takes to watch that long
Starts out like Rambo.
This Bond is no English gentleman.
What is M letting in at MI6 these days? (Eric Yahoo)
Traditionally, James Bond was a movie about glamourous action, good
taste, class, spirited replies and high-flying acts, all wrapped up in
some ultra high-tech coating. Casino Royale brings the franchise in
line with your average action movie; it completely lost its identity,
that of an EXCEPTIONAL ACTION MOVIE. It doesn't stand out anymore...
If you're a James Bond fan, the end will leave you with a sour taste
and one huge question: How long is it going to be until they get a REAL
James Bond and re-launch the spectacular 007 series as we were used to
it from the decades past? (AVL
Being a die hard Bond fan, I had high expectations for this movie, and
booked the premier tickets well in advance, only to walk out the film
thinking “Was this a Bond movie that I have just
Here are my reasons why I totally disliked the movie;
1. The “villain” was ridiculous, this must be the
worst villain to ever appear in Bond.
2. Story line was inept, there was no thrilling storyline, just, some
confused guy wearing a tux chasing after an investment banker?
3. Poker scene lasted 40 mins+, and it had no climactic scenes at all.
4. Opening theme… where is the traditional Bond at the start
the film, and a nice song to go with it after the opening scene!?
5. No technology in this one, p.s. James Bland needs more driving
Reasons why Bond IS
1. Craig is a brute, he has no elegance, sophistication, suave or
charm. He had no glamour. He did not look the part.
"Do I look like I give a damn?" reply to if he likes his martini shaken
2. Craig looks OLD, his wrinkles etc appear massive, he looks like
Gollum’s younger brother, and has the same acting skills as
3. James Bland's humor is infuriating, the way he joked about when
having his balls tortured in the movie.
4. His fighting scenes look like he slaps rather than punches, and he
always looks like a miserable scruff. (Abra Yahoo)
is the number of Brits left who would work for that harpee M. Not a
single likable character. Even bond seems no more than a robotic hit
man on steroids. The endless parade of effete aristocrats does not
suggest a cause worth fighting for.
The premise is utterly inane. Bond has to win a high stakes poker game
or the arch villain will go on to finance terrorism. Why not just shoot
the bastard and freeze his accounts? It would have been more believable
for bond to be chasing down a few hundred London
who had somehow acquired a dirty bomb.
The high stakes card game was predictable and boring. Bond is
interrupted in the middle by a poisoned martini provided by the arch
villain. He retires to his Aston Martin to administer an antidote but
his heart stops before he can save himself. Luckily, his haughty
girlfriend sidekick shows up just in time to administer the jolt he
needs to start his heart, change his shirt, return to the game, and win
with a predictable straight flush. Who writes this crap? (JM Yahoo)
That seems to be the consensus on the reviews... Personally, I hated
it... It was sooooo boring... yet it was very difficult to follow the
plot... James Bond was never given a mission to do or so it seemed...I
really don't know what he was supposed to accomplish.. and as for the
Casino Royale poker game, I thought I was going to fall asleep... And
the new James Bond lacks sophistication and looks... and talking about
looks, aren't Bond girls supposed to be beautiful or at least
pretty?... Also, where was Q and Moneypenny? I think you should see
this movie to form your own opinions but don't expect too much. (Stiller Yahoo)
He is too short! Now they have to find diminutive actresses, short
villains, and strategic camera angles.
I was disappointed by the choice to drop Brosnan, then read the early
reviews. After thinking I was going to boycott, being a big James Bond
fan, I went. I was greatly disappointed overall. A large portion of the
Bond elements I treasure were gone out of this movie. No spectacular
openning scene, no Q, NO HOT WOMEN, no sense of humor, so called
realistic violence was anything but. Was this the ugliest cast ever?
Who was that first bad guy he was chasing, Spiderman?
Critics like the "low tech" less gadget approach. The movie was
inundated with the cell phone. Anybody notice? He used the cell phone
numerous times to locate the bad guy, see who the bad guy called, see
who the girl called, etc... It was a damn cell phone commercial. Too
many gadgets! too many cell phones, not enough cool Bond gagdets from
How about the poker game. To keep current of course they play Texas
hold em. I just kept thinking that there should be a truckdriver with a
greasy baseball cap playing with them. (ADA Yahoo)
Oh for cryin' out loud. I knew Daniel Craig was ugly going into this
movie but I figured I'd give it a chance anyway since I've always loved
James Bond movies. I never thought I'd say that one of the current Bond
movies could be as bad as A View to a Kill, but this one is right up
there. Tony Bruno on his radio show proclaimed this "the greatest Bond
movie ever". All I can say to him is...stick to sports because you are
obviously clueless when it comes to movie reviews....this movie
sucked!! No if, ands, or buts about it. I should have listened to my
instincts and gone to Deja Vu. I kept waiting for a real villian to
show up in this movie, but all it was was one big freakin' yawn. At
least Pierce Brosnan was nice to look at. Anyway lesson learned. I know
not to waste any more money on any future Bond Movies with Daniel Craig
in it. (DCL Yahoo)
Movie did not feel like Bond. Guy did not look like Bond. This movie
does not need to be called James Bond anything. Everyone leaving a
positive review appears to be connected to the movie or on some
payroll or selling something. Sorry but the truth is the truth, this is
no James Bond. (Sir
The Producers said the wanted to give more depth to Bond. Make him seem
more real. Well that's like having a cell phone commercial that shows
they never work in your office. No one should want real out of James
Bond. He's a make pretend person who every woman wants and every man
wants to be. He never gets shot, and can knockout any guy with one
maybe two punches. He never gets sloppy drinking martini's all night,
and never has a hangover. He can do anything with a machine with little
to no boring training. "Push this button and the car will fly, just
steer like you normally would. Will do Q"! Bring back the real fake
Bond and go invent some normal dude of your own to bore audiences with.
I'll just call myself an idiot for actually believing the hype about
this movie. "Best Bond ever" my ass!! Anyone that rated this thing
above a "C" should have their head examined. Stop telling people this
movie's good because it ABSOLUTELY SUCKS!!! (VM Yahoo)
Now that I have your attention, I will preface by saying I too, am the
biggest bond fan (I know, there are alot of us:-) I have seen and own
most of if not all movies and books. While I was not keen on the Daniel
Craig idea, I approached it with an open mind and can actually say he
was the best part of the movie. The rest of the film was greatly flawed.
Everyone should know that Albert Broccoli's daughter is in charge of
the franchise now and undoubtedly she wanted to mix things up and
freshen the series. She accomplished the goal of creating a fresh
character that you want to know more about in the future, but they
totally forgot about the story line and previous films. Unlike Batman
returns, this film does not blend with ANY of the other films at all,
nor does it make sense.
First, some have said this film is a truer portrayal of the true bond.
Gritty underneath, yet still polished. Yet, this Bond has no buffer in
between those two characteristics and is not very secret agent linke.
There is NO mention of Bond's former naval days even though this is
supposed to be a starting story. M is a women (Judy Dench) and this is
quite flawed since most of the earlier bonds were played by a male.
The story plain sucked. The worst Bond story ever. After 15 minutes,
you know what the villian is up to and the rest of the movie is a
ridiculous card game where the two adversaries know who each other are
(duh) (Gr8 Yahoo)
This was the worst Bond movie ever. I'd have excused Daniel Craig for
looking like a bull mastiff if it weren't for his bad acting and the
lack of a good plot. There's almost no action and, unless if you are a
poker fan, you'll enjoy sitting for about 45 minutes that drag on
during the game. I'm a big fan of 007 and I hope they come up with
something better and re-hire Pierce Brosnan, instead of James "Blond". (Krishbah Yahoo)
Should have been rated R - found very offensive and needlessly violent.
This new Bond has no sense of humor, no sense of elegance. I am sorry I
wasted the money. (Chick
The movie was good, but this was NOT James Bond. The lead character
lacked the sophistication and the suave nature of Bond. --Something
Bond was born with, he didn't learn it.
He was a sloppy fighter, didn't have any cool gadgets (where was 'Q'?),
and didn't look good in a tux.
got a great action film going --really neat foot chase at the
beginning, but this is NOT a Bond film. (Fahey Yahoo)
the new "Bond" already looks too old to take over this part, he gets
his "butt" kicked throughout the movie (and lower parts)- never
something that one would expect from Bond. (Becky Yahoo)
This movie didn't have the feel or sensation of a Bond flick. Bond is
supposed to be sexy and attractive - what happened? They said they were
replacing Brosnan because he is getting older - well this guy looks
older than Brosnan and isn't very attractive. I couldn't even imagine
him getting too close to me. Bond is supposed to be sauve, handsome,
and debonaire. Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan are all very
and had these qualities. They made every woman want to melt. The woman
watching is supposed to want to feel like she is that Bond girl - I
didn't have that feeling with this actor. Men watching - want to be
Bond. As an action movie, it was fine, but I didn't see much difference
between Casino Royale and the next action movie. Where were all of the
Bond toys and Q? The car did nothing except for revolving compartments
with the medical unit and gun trays. I was so excited about seeing this
movie and came out of the theater very disappointed. I saw Casino
Royale - but it didn't have the Bond Flavor that we all have come to
know and love. Why is it that when you've got a good thing going, it
gets changed? (Mori
Remember the failure of the New Coke, in the 1980's? When Coke tried to
introduce a new formula, lost its following, and hastily backtracked?
Casino Royale is the New Coke.
I hope Bond's makers withdraw this new formula, because if they don't
I'll never again spend 12 bucks to watch a Bond flick.
This wasn't a James Bond flick. It was James Bond, morphed into
When I walked out of the theater at 86th & 3rd on New York's
East Side, at least half the people looked puzzled; many were shaking
their head. Only about 20% looked happy. And you're talking about a
crowd that had lined up around the block, just to get in!
The makers of this film fundamentally misunderstand the positioning of
the James Bond brand. People go to watch a Bond movie for light-hearted
fun. The Bond we know, love and will always pay to watch is subtle,
suave, sometimes goofy, yet always articulate and clever. People want
to admire the near-misses, double-entendres, subtle romances with
beautiful women, stunning shots of exotic locations, and fast car
boat chases. They want to see their hero dispatch the bad guys with a
This movie was violent, raw, very bloody, and sometimes disturbing.
Watching a naked James Bond being brutally tortured was particularly
disturbing, as was the sight of Solange's dead face in the hammock. And
this violence was sometimes random and disjointed. Recll the first
scene, where he batters dead a man in the bathroom...what connection
did that have with the rest of the movie?
Even the romance scenes had little romance in them...the scene with
Solange was rough.
AND THEY NEVER EVEN PLAYED THE BOND MUSIC!!
There are 100+ movies a year coming out of Hollywood, where the hero is
chiseled, violent, bloody, tough as nails, and supposedly emotional.
James Bond is unique. If I want that kind of action hero, I'll watch
one of those, thank-you-very-much.
Daniel Craig was pseudo-emotional, manic depressive, and somewhat
inarticulate. His acting was mediocre. But barring that, it isn't
really his fault. It is his director's who must have asked him to be
like Rocky. But if I want that kind of action hero, I'll watch Rocky or
Jean Claude van Damme, thank-you-very-much!
Even the attemps to be emotional were clumsy. When he told Vesper "I
love you", the audience practically gasped. When has Bond said that?
(Ok, ok, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service- a huge flop)
At times, the movie was even boring (e.g, at the time of the scene with
Vesper, on the beach), and people around me looked ready to leave.
They got it wrong. Friends tell me they're attempting to set up the
next Bond flick. Coke had plenty of plans for the New Coke. Coke saved
itself by withdrawing the New Coke, and going back to a tried and
tested brand. Let's hope the makers of Bond do the same. (GSR Yahoo)
Daniel Craig might well be a two-film Bond. He'd be OK in some generic
action film, but unless his next outing is a lot more persuasive, he's
no Bond. Suave he is not. Put him in a tux, and he does not look like a
"gentleman agent." He looks like a river rat in a tux.
Early on, Vesper Lynd sizes him up and says that he looks like he came
from Oxford. What?! He looks like he came from the dumpster behind the
train station. Someone with a college education? No. A commander in the
British navy? No. At one point, M calls him a thug, and that's exactly
what he is.
The last 20 minutes or so do show some promise. Perhaps the idea is
that we see the character beginning to evolve, but by god it's a long
time to wait! I'm willing to give the next movie a shot, though. Who
knows? He may even comb his hair. (Ring
While Craig makes a great action hero, he doesn't do it as Bond for me.
Bond is supposed to be cultured and intelligent. Craig's Bond is a
thug. I've always thought of Bond as lean or sinewy. Craig's Bond looks
like the just finished some healthy doses of steroids and feels at home
in a Gold Club gym. (Jake
Daniel Craig's performance was a putrid rendition of a wretched
character that doesn't even resemble that of James Bond. His character
is nothing more than a barbaric MI6 reject, who lacks class, taste and
Saw the film today, Craig is sucks as Bond. Before you say it, he is
not even close to Fleming's Bond. CR wasn't even a decent spy flick.
This is the worst Bond film ever made. Give this one a miss. If you
want a good action-adventure spy flick wait for the new Bourne movie.
You'll leave the theater disappointed with this one. (THX Yahoo)
know how this movie got B+ rating. Maybe I was expecting a lot but it
sucked. Not enough action and too much drama. Not a typical 007 movie.
I think this movie was a low budget movie, they didn't want to pay for
the previous 007 guy so they hired a new guy and the action scenes are
so cheap. (Joul Yahoo)
waiting on the refund for the 2 1/2 hours of my life that I wasted
seeing this movie. If all they changed was making Bond blond haired and
blue eyed I wouldn't complain. However, the very things that made Bond
Bond were nowhere to be seen. No gadgets, no "Q", no Moneypenny, no one
witty one-liners. The first chase scene wasn't bad, but once Bond
pulled up in a Ford it was all downhill. I wonder if the producers have
ever even seen a Bond film. (Wardog
this movie last night- huge Bond fan too, and I NEVER write reviews,
but I had to after I saw this one. Soooooooooooo disappointed. The
movie seemed to drag on forever, and there was NO action! The beginning
of the movie was such a great start, and then as soon as the first
action scene was done, it went straight downhill. If this wasn't a Bond
movie, I would understand, but these people have put a level of
expectation to live up too over the years. This is definitely not how a
Bond movie should go. Sick to my stomach. (Jeremy Yahoo)
unique about Bond movies is virtually drained into standard-fare
adventure movie action. Not even fun showing off with the gizmos.
Embarassingly hackneyed dialogue. Script contortions to extend movie to
144 minutes. There's passing mention of Sept 11, but no clear relation
to it in the story except for the ultimately unresolved story element
about terrorism - and a to be continued ("Bond will be back") at the
end. Obviously, a period reference. (Gene
decent action movie. Lots of suspense with an interesting story line.
But it was NOT a good 007 movie. It seemed more like an action movie
that they accidentally named one of the characters James Bond.
It completely does not fit with the long tradition of James Bond movies
produced. The new Bond is more like a spoiled child than a suave,
gentlemanly double agent that has been so popular. He is not even
If this is the new direction that the 007 franchise will be taking then
they have just lost a fan. (Faith
much younger Bond was the order, correct?
Pierce Brosnan, who looks like early 40s, was too old to play Bond. Yet
Daniel Craig looks like he is a much older (mid 50s) sibling of Brosnan.
Storyline was too predictable...everyone is not who he appears to be.
It was tedious and at times, just plain boring.
Special effects were more than adequate, but that is what the action
movies are supposed to be.
Overall, this film was very disappointing!!! (Golf Yahoo)
should I begin...let's see, first of all "our" new Bond looks like an
ape in a tux, he doesn't know how to walk and he eats with his mouth
open. Were they serious? The worst Bond EVER! (Page Yahoo)
watched all previous James Bond movies I have to admit that I was
disappointed in the direction this movie took. What made Bond great
over the years was his charm, humor, gadgetry, and of course, the
female companions. Why change what worked? Why get rid of all that made
Bond great throughout 44 year history?
Here is my list of positives:
1) Great action scenes. Right from the start we are thrown into an
amazing chase with very well executed stunts. The movie lasts over 2.5
hours and delivers some very good action scenes.
2) Women... Yes, there were two very stunning women in the film.
Unfortunately, this is where my positives about the film end. Here is
my opinion why this film is not a true Bond film:
1) Why Daniel Craig? He didn't seem to fit the part. He looks like he
is in his mid 40s, balding, and his character virtually lacked any
humor. Humor and charm are very important to Bond character. There was
very minimal humor, not nearly enough to classify it as a Bond humor.
At one point in the casino Bond asks for martini, and the bartender
comes back with a question, "Shaken, not stirred?", for which Bond
replied something like "Oh, I don't care." This scene killed it for me.
"Shaken, not stirred" is Bond's trademark and has been throughout the
entire history of the Bond moviemaking. Why change it?
2)What happened to all the gadgets? Bond is a fantasy, he has to be a
fantasy for the movie to work. Bond without gadgets is like "Married
with Children" without Al Bundy.... I read that producers wanted to
make Bond look more real, more like your average Joe, a person with
questions, guilt, feelings, etc... The question I have is why? If
that's the case, then come up with some other character and make it
your typical action movie.
3) The storyline, especially falling in love with Vesper, was
overplayed. The idea of Bond trying to save her after she double
crosses him is simply a joke. 007 suddenly becomes a lovesick puppy and
a wimp. I also didn't believe in her personal story with a boyfriend.
She didn't have to die but it had to happen for the movie to supposedly
conclusion, I have to say that as an action flick, this is a great
film. There is plenty of action and suspense, chases and fights,
torture and killings. However, as a Bond movie, it just didn't work for
me. Let's remember that JAMES BOND is a FANTASY.... not an average
action hero. Make it more Bond style next time. (elinka Yahoo)
wondering why moviemakers use some other name rather than 007? If this
were some independent movie that had no relationship with 007 series,
this should be fine. The film lost all fun stuff 007 movies had in the
past. What a shame! (GZ
JAMES BOND MOVIE EVER MADE!
I thought I went in to see the wrong movie. Very boring. The actor
I WANT MY MONEY BACK! (Mina
violent and horrible acting. Wait for the next BOND, this one stinks! (DC Yahoo)
seen every Bond film starting with Dr. No in a theater and anxiously
awaited this new edition with a new Bond figure. I knew something was
different when the opening segment almost put me to sleep. What was
that? This movie had a jumble of really disjointed action scenes that I
failed to link together. I have the feeling that some brazen new ideas
were injected into this story without a proper shake out. This was also
a Bond film devoid of the staples like gadgets, bizarre plots, properly
made martinis, and those Bond girls. I hope this epic franchise can
continue after this train wreck. Mr. Craig is a talented actor but is
not James Bond material. Please do it better next time. (Act Yahoo)
film was made for Women not Men, Bond is about gadgets, hot woman, big
fights, explosions and car chases, and there was no sign of any of
these in this film, Instead they had Daniel Craig pop out of the ocean
like Ursula Andress from Dr. No, Which is just wrong, plain and simple!
lets get this over with.
I am going to start out with the fact that Daniel Craig is the worst
James Bond. He is always puckering his lips. When he was in this 5
second car chase he showed no emotion when he crashed. Nope none, just
kept puckering those lips. And this guy didn't even look like a James
Bond. He had short hair and he looked like he was 60. So Craig you
suck, get another job.
So don't waste your time. (Floyd