Yet More Tales From The Darkside 

More unhappy campers...
Daniel 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 stylist.

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.

7. Self-Parodies

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 done.

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)


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 possible.

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)

I was 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 TRANSPORTER movies.

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 & military war criminals. If Bond is really ex-SAS, then maybe he has experience hunting the IRA???  (DC AJB)

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 who knows if we'll ever to see the return of a Bond film that delivers escapsim rather than realism. (Rev IMDB)

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 futuristic.

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 IMDB)

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 tradition.

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 him well, Roger Moore had a more comical personality of Bond while Dalton portrayed a more literary sense of Bond. Brosnan  was a combination 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 Yahoo)

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 Yahoo)

This was one dreary experience for a long time James Bond fan. The slow pace  between action sequences was particulary tedious. I guess we were 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 Yahoo)

This is the worst bond film of all time- completely devoid of a real story or any of the elements that make a bond film- the baddies were awful, the Bond chicks were crap and there were no gadgets. Worst of all was Daniel Craig as Bond- he is at the bottom of the 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)
I'm not sure where all these "A" reviews came 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 knows 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 storyline.   (UCF Yahoo)

Sad to say 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 children.

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)

Eva Green 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.
(HH Yahoo)

Yes, Daniel Craig, is ugly. His acting was strong, but he doesn't look like Bond. The movie dragged on and on without anything happening. It's not fun to watch Craig pretend to be James Bond.  (GL Yahoo)

It's 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 Yahoo)

This was 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 much.

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 good guy
- one uninspired senseless story that is not good
- the opening scene is really the PS3 game on screen, Mario Brothers does it better

Summary: a good action film, but NOT, by any imaginative or creative way, a Bond movie. (ZZ Yahoo)

1. 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 of 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. How lame.
4. Meaningless action sequences. The action is good. But, too often long action sequences come before an explanation of what exactly happened. 
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 motif.
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)

It's 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)

If you 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)

So here's the deal:

is blonde

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.
I've watched all the James Bonds and this one will go down as the worst ever. Sorely disappointed. (Robert Hoffman Yahoo)

True Bond 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)

AVOID THE 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)

Bond, James Bond has been a staple in our household  these 40 years of lead 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)

I suspect 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)

The 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 impressive.

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)

I’m 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.

My issues:
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 actors.
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 locations?

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 FORD…….

Weak film, what a waste of my time.  (MH Yahoo)

Betrayal!!! Mr BEEFY Craig is anything but BOND! (Amaract Yahoo)

If 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 Yahoo)

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)

I truly 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 better. (Fort Yahoo)

James 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 much...

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 Girl Yahoo)

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 brutalized.

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: ****.com  (HW Yahoo)

(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)

What about 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 girl........boring.

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 boring movie.

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 Yahoo)

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 seen?”

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 of 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 lessons.

Reasons why Bond IS NOT Craig

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 or stirred.

2. Craig looks OLD, his wrinkles etc appear massive, he looks like Gollum’s younger brother, and has the same acting skills as him.

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)

007 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 “youths” 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 yesteryear.
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 Kahn Yahoo)

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. (Sukari Yahoo)

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 Yahoo)

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.
You've got a great action film going --really neat foot chase at the beginning, but this is NOT a Bond film. (Fahey Yahoo)

First off, 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 handsome 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 Yahoo)

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 Sylvester Stallone-lite.

When I walked out of the theater at 86th & 3rd on New York's Upper 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 light touch.

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.


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 Yahoo)

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 Yahoo)

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 sophistication!  (ABL Yahoo)

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)

I don't 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)

I'm still 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 Yahoo)

Just saw 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)

What's 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 Yahoo)

This was a 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 likeable.

If this is the new direction that the 007 franchise will be taking then they have just lost a fan. (Faith Yahoo)

A 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)

Where 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)

Having 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 work.
In 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)

I am 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 Yahoo)

I thought I went in to see the wrong movie. Very boring. The actor sucks.

Dark, violent and horrible acting. Wait for the next BOND, this one stinks! (DC Yahoo)

I have 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)

This Bond 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! (O'Brien Yahoo)

Ok 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 Yahoo)



c 2006 Alternative 007