Casino Royale

User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 953 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 85 out of 953
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sam
    Mar 19, 2007
    5
    Great action sequences WITHOUT the use of CGI (psst, Die Another Day) and Craig is an excellent James Bond, but the plot was very sub-par.
  2. CobiWan
    Dec 17, 2006
    5
    I am sorry but I was really disappointed...not much of a love story and a long poker game...lacking real bond action.
  3. JayW.
    Feb 16, 2007
    4
    In my opinion, James Bond has risen to the rank of comic book superhero. By this I mean: nobody is smarter, nobody has skill, and like Batman, nobody can beat all of his gadgets. This said, I love James Bond. Everytime you walk inot 1 of these movies, you know that you are going to get a completely unbelievealbe thrill ride as some villian seeks to take over the world...that is until In my opinion, James Bond has risen to the rank of comic book superhero. By this I mean: nobody is smarter, nobody has skill, and like Batman, nobody can beat all of his gadgets. This said, I love James Bond. Everytime you walk inot 1 of these movies, you know that you are going to get a completely unbelievealbe thrill ride as some villian seeks to take over the world...that is until "Casino Royale". In this movie, they attempted to make James real & fragile. If I want to see a real & fragile spy movie, I go rent "Spy Game". To me, they robbed James of his gadgets & swagger which essentially killed the character. Yes, I know that this was Flemmings first story, but "first" doesn't always mean "best". Some writers really struggle with their characters in the beginning while they try to figure them out. To me, this is the version on James Bond that Flemming left on the cutting room floor for a reason. Expand
  4. DerrickH
    Dec 11, 2006
    5
    I am a James Bond fan and this was the lamest Bond I have ever seen!!! Where were the gadgets, the cars, the suspense. Wait for the DVD, better yet, tv. I could have saved my 9.50.
  5. Nov 20, 2012
    4
    Loved the stunts, loved the theme song, but did not love the overall scenario of the movie itself. A long boring card game in the middle of the movie and the action scenes are mostly dealt with chasing one enemy at a time. I expect more excitement and the gadgets this time but there's nothing more than just some pointless scenes.
  6. Jul 30, 2014
    6
    Daniel Craig's cast as James Bond looked weird at first, but it was quickly proven that he is more than an adequate fit for the role. Agent 007 gets a different character and charm in Craig's somewhat emotionless face. What makes "Casino Royale" special is its excellent direction and its modern look, even if the scenario is too commonplace and the ending a bit disappointing. But altogetherDaniel Craig's cast as James Bond looked weird at first, but it was quickly proven that he is more than an adequate fit for the role. Agent 007 gets a different character and charm in Craig's somewhat emotionless face. What makes "Casino Royale" special is its excellent direction and its modern look, even if the scenario is too commonplace and the ending a bit disappointing. But altogether this distinctive installment of the Bond franchise is a decent one. Expand
  7. BenJ.
    Dec 1, 2006
    5
    Hats off to Daniel Craig for brining the right amount of (much needed) grit to the role. However his achievements, coupled with some great set pieces, are runied by a ridiculous running time, and a terribly hammy final quarter. Drop the drawn out ending, shave 40 minutes off the films length and you'd have a great film. Sadly, this is only average.
  8. GaborA.
    Nov 17, 2006
    4
    A couple of good ideas are lost in a muddle of contradictions and flaws. The new Bond is interesting, but too bad he doesn't have an adversary. The film tries to make up for this with forced twists. For the first time a Bond movie has metaphorical significance and a darker side, but also for the first time Bond has nothing to do but get lucky in poker in this plotless, paceless A couple of good ideas are lost in a muddle of contradictions and flaws. The new Bond is interesting, but too bad he doesn't have an adversary. The film tries to make up for this with forced twists. For the first time a Bond movie has metaphorical significance and a darker side, but also for the first time Bond has nothing to do but get lucky in poker in this plotless, paceless entry. Its a shame considering the brave decisions, but at least I'm curious to see where this goes. Expand
  9. RobM.
    Nov 18, 2006
    4
    No action at all in this movie compared to ones with Peirce. Trhs movie is not very characteristic of a bond film. It is often slow at times and goes on for lengthy periods with out adding to the plot. Do yourself a fvor and wait till it comes out on video.
  10. JoeB.
    Dec 9, 2006
    6
    After entering the theater to see what was supposed to be the best Bond film ever made, I came out with the satisfaction of seeing an O.k. action movie. The only parts that I thought were Bond-worthy was the beginning free running segment and the fuel truck incident. I know its supposed to be the beginning for Bond thus the reason for no gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, and why he starts out in a After entering the theater to see what was supposed to be the best Bond film ever made, I came out with the satisfaction of seeing an O.k. action movie. The only parts that I thought were Bond-worthy was the beginning free running segment and the fuel truck incident. I know its supposed to be the beginning for Bond thus the reason for no gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, and why he starts out in a Ford. But really I don't think anyone cares about how Bond obtained these items or met these people in the first place. And the product placement got annoying at times. The producers need to change something--either get rid of Daniel Craig or make a movie that is true to the rest of the franchise. Expand
  11. AugustusS.
    Nov 23, 2006
    6
    First off: the best Bond since Connery. Second off: that's not saying much. I don't mind that they're trying to reinvent Bond--not, as some have suggested, transplanting Connery's Bond into the modern day--and Craig does a fine job, taking a little from each of his predecessors. The movie is cool, action-packed, suspenseful, but, as all action movies are these days, First off: the best Bond since Connery. Second off: that's not saying much. I don't mind that they're trying to reinvent Bond--not, as some have suggested, transplanting Connery's Bond into the modern day--and Craig does a fine job, taking a little from each of his predecessors. The movie is cool, action-packed, suspenseful, but, as all action movies are these days, cheesy. Terribly, terribly cheesy and cliched. "Oh James, if all that was left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd be more of a man than any man I've ever met." "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger." Who wrote that? Whoever thought of that interchange should be shot. Repeatedly. I had high hopes for this one, I really did, but bad writing ruined it. Think of "Mission Impossible" meets "Syphon Filter" (or any action video game, actually), and you've got "Casino Royale." Not necessarily a bad thing, but will probably be a better game than a movie. Expand
  12. CornC
    Dec 3, 2006
    5
    Bond is presented as a "realistic", sentimental, anti-hero. Rather in bad taste if you ask me.
  13. SteveK.
    Mar 21, 2007
    6
    This movie was just weird for me. [***Mild Spoilers***] I think they achieved the goal of psychoanalyzing Bond how he became a cold-hearted emotionally aloof badass, but as for the story, it had too many holes and the whole movie was weirdly paced. It went from heart-stopping action to a really bizarre torture scene that seemed like a first-grader made up and then it turned into some This movie was just weird for me. [***Mild Spoilers***] I think they achieved the goal of psychoanalyzing Bond how he became a cold-hearted emotionally aloof badass, but as for the story, it had too many holes and the whole movie was weirdly paced. It went from heart-stopping action to a really bizarre torture scene that seemed like a first-grader made up and then it turned into some sappy love story only to thrust you back into action with hardly any explanation. I like that they tried to make a grittier, cold-blooded Bond but it was just a little weird for me. And when the end came ultimately, it wasn't very satisfying. Expand
  14. MichaelP.
    Nov 19, 2006
    6
    This film seems to lack focus--it felt like a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation, as if the director and others couldn't quite agree on how things should be. I don't think the movie holds up well compared to many of the older classics. While the dialogue is quite good in places, it's flat in others. The stakes are vague, and the climax is also fuzzy. Furthermore, This film seems to lack focus--it felt like a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation, as if the director and others couldn't quite agree on how things should be. I don't think the movie holds up well compared to many of the older classics. While the dialogue is quite good in places, it's flat in others. The stakes are vague, and the climax is also fuzzy. Furthermore, there is not much there in terms of Bond punishing the villian, not much sense of any justice. I think the choices for the two lead actors (Bond and his love interest) could have been better. This particular James Bond lacks the class and finesse of Sean Connery. The only thing that consistently shines in this film are the awesome action scenes. Without them, I'd only give it a 3 or 4. Expand
  15. PhiloR.
    Nov 26, 2006
    6
    it was too long, got boring towards the end. initial chase seem was great, but downhill after that. i would not recommend.
  16. Hélène
    Nov 27, 2006
    5
    This is exactly what Bond didn't need: more "realism". Or actually more violence I should say. Now let us proceed to the examination of the ten points that make a good James Bond movie, and rate the film accordingly. 1) The gun barrel sequence: has been removed (!!!) Shame. A very clumsy attempt to include it at the end of the flashback introduction, but in very poor taste. 2) The This is exactly what Bond didn't need: more "realism". Or actually more violence I should say. Now let us proceed to the examination of the ten points that make a good James Bond movie, and rate the film accordingly. 1) The gun barrel sequence: has been removed (!!!) Shame. A very clumsy attempt to include it at the end of the flashback introduction, but in very poor taste. 2) The "Bond, James Bond" line. Last line of the movie. OK. 3) The "vodka martini, shaken not stirred" line. It appears, but in a very iconoclast way. Let's count half a point. 4) The Moneypenny scene. No trace of her in the whole movie. Shame. 5) The hotel scene (someone, girl or enemy, awaits for Bond in his room): well let's say it's there - quite a lot happens in hotels. 6) The casino scene. No problem for that point, the main plot being Bond playing against the bad guy. 7) The Q briefing. No trace of Q nor R in this film. Shame. 8) The bit of nonsense: the Medipac scene is quite enjoyable in that respect but we can feel in general that the producers fear that things appear too unrealistic, whereas it is precisely the point in Bond movies. We want unbelievable, cheesy things! 9) The funny lines: eternal shame on Eon Prod for having given birth to a humourless James Bond. No funny line AT ALL. 10) The "James Bond will return" quotation at the end of the credits: doesn't appear, and I sincerely hope this James Bond will NOT return! Total: 4,5/10, which I round up to 5 because I'm good. Expand
  17. NatyN.
    Nov 28, 2006
    4
    As a Bond Movie fan, very dissapointed. A new human Bond??? Who asked for it???? We Bond fans are still fans for the gadgets, the women, the funny lines.....very dissapointed.
  18. BMR
    Nov 29, 2006
    6
    Lot's of shiny cars and beautiful locales but not much of a compelling storyline. Worst of all; the main character is misogynistic, unsympathetic and one dimensional. If you' re between the age of 13 and 21 and you enjoy watching the hero beat everyone's asses and spout off cheesy on liners, than you MIGHT enjoy this movie.
  19. DavrosD.
    Dec 16, 2006
    4
    Average story and boring Bond girls. Daniel Craig only just cuts it, maybe if there was a better plot, it would improve it somewhat.
  20. KenT.
    Dec 19, 2006
    4
    This move is OVER RATED, this is the worst 007 I've seen. The only good part was the begining, though the whole move, I was waiting for more action. I will not buy this when it comes out on DVD.
  21. AlexG.
    Dec 9, 2006
    6
    This movie is quite over-rated as seen by its score on metacritic. The consensus that seems to be going around is that this is a grittier, darker Bond is actually an illusion. Sure we see Bond get his arse kicked, but that doesn't make it darker, grittier etc. The fight scenes are still over the top- typical of all Bond movies. The use of the bulldozer at the start by Bond reinforces This movie is quite over-rated as seen by its score on metacritic. The consensus that seems to be going around is that this is a grittier, darker Bond is actually an illusion. Sure we see Bond get his arse kicked, but that doesn't make it darker, grittier etc. The fight scenes are still over the top- typical of all Bond movies. The use of the bulldozer at the start by Bond reinforces this point, there was really just no need for him to pursue his foe in it. Another really annoying thing in this move was the product placement. The close up of the cell phones in particular are just embarrassing. 'The Departed' featured no such advertising on its close up cell phone shots if i recall correctly. It wouldn't have beeen so bad if it was discrete, but its obvious everything was placed in specific ways to get a good shot in by the camera. The poker scenes during the middle of the film were just so silly and slowed the movie down. An example of this is shown in the deciding hand when there was a four-way all in on the flop, and we see hands like full houses, flushes, all to be beaten by Bonds straight flush- what a joke. I don't understand why the film needed such stupid hands- audiences are not that dumb. After all, don't 50 million people in America play poker? Aside from these negatives, I can't fault Daniel Craig here, who gives a solid portrayal of James Bond. Peirce Brosnan's efforts look terrible compared to this. The love story is also effective. This could have been such a good movie, and a chance to finally revitalize the franchise much like 'Batman Begins' did. Unfortuantely this really isn't the case. Expand
  22. Luke
    Mar 12, 2007
    6
    Overrated...not like a true Bond movie, seems to be more about FX. Plot seems to fall on its face and never goes to where it should.
  23. ConorS.
    Jun 27, 2007
    6
    The film isn't bad for a thriller, but it's not just supposed to be a thriller: it's supposed to be a Bond movie. There's no Q, no Moneypenny, no ironically funny moments, no outrageous action. Too much time is spent at the card table with "Le Chiffre," who seems to aspire to be the least intimidating Bond villain ever. The music is bad as well.
  24. JacobL.
    Nov 15, 2008
    6
    Casino Royale starts out as a promising movie. Early on in the movie you have a great epic chase scene along with James Bond tracking down terrorists which makes the movie really exiciting. However, once we get to Casino Royale the plot gets very deep and hard to follow and eventually starts to drag and become boring. There is a climax at the end of the movie but by then you won't Casino Royale starts out as a promising movie. Early on in the movie you have a great epic chase scene along with James Bond tracking down terrorists which makes the movie really exiciting. However, once we get to Casino Royale the plot gets very deep and hard to follow and eventually starts to drag and become boring. There is a climax at the end of the movie but by then you won't even care about what's going on. What sucks is that Casino Royale could have been a good movie. It had action, mystery, and a cool main character. However, the writers tried to do too much and made what seems like a great movie at first into a dull and uninteresting movie about a guy in a tuxedo who works for the British Secret Service. That being said it's deffinetly worth checking out for fans of the series. But, if this is your first James Bond movie you'd be better off sitting this one out. Expand
  25. LucasW.
    Feb 16, 2008
    6
    I thought the story line was much to random and it dragged on for a bit, but nevertheless its a James bond movie.
  26. AMovieCritic
    Nov 18, 2006
    4
    One of the most boring "action movies" I've ever seen. Now, I'm not exactly a huge Bond fan, but I've seen a few of them, and in general, they're fun movies. After the last few relied on high tech items and over-the-top situations, the producers here tried to create a more realistic Bond movie this time...it ends up not being any fun AT ALL. The recent Bond movies were One of the most boring "action movies" I've ever seen. Now, I'm not exactly a huge Bond fan, but I've seen a few of them, and in general, they're fun movies. After the last few relied on high tech items and over-the-top situations, the producers here tried to create a more realistic Bond movie this time...it ends up not being any fun AT ALL. The recent Bond movies were exciting. They had action, cool effects, and great situations. Yes, in Die Another Day, it was over the top and implausible that he surfed into the villain's HQ and that the showdown took place in BMW's on the ice...but it was exciting and fun. Casino Royale, in trying to be more realistic, spends almost the entire movie with them sitting around a card table. The villain....doesn't do ANYTHING in the entire movie. The only good action scenes are in the movie's first 45 minutes and by the end, they're totally forgotten. (This is a 2 hour and 20 minute movie, too.) The idea was to make Bond seem more like a real person. No longer is he basically invincible. He gets smashed around, he is almost killed on many occasions, his plans almost always seem to fail, and he seems borderline inept at times. The result is a hero who is just no longer cool. He spends almost the entire movie playfully arguing with the Bond girl, who lacks any of the mystery and seductive attitude that make other Bond girls so appealing. Again, they try to make their relationship realistic and the center of the movie, but it ends up being boring. The locations weren't great (Bourne Supremacy DESTROYS it in this area,) the action scenes (the few that are there) are only okay, the plot is almost non-existant, and unless you know how to play Poker, you will be lost for at least 40 minutes of this movie. Critics seemed to have loved this movie, which is proof that once again, they're out of touch with the average moviegoer. At least, in the theater I saw this movie in, where the crowd was noticeably antsy and unimpressed after this overlong and slow movie ended. Expand
  27. JAMESN.
    Nov 23, 2006
    4
    I agree with ALL who gave low ratings about this movie. I am a BIG FAN of Bond. This is the WORST bond movie I have ever seen. Right from the get-go, lousy action, extremely limitted dialogue, no coherent plot (very sketchy) whatsoever. Addtionally, I thought Daniel Craig was severly defficient in class, sophistication and looks. He looked pretty much like a beaten up POW who managed to I agree with ALL who gave low ratings about this movie. I am a BIG FAN of Bond. This is the WORST bond movie I have ever seen. Right from the get-go, lousy action, extremely limitted dialogue, no coherent plot (very sketchy) whatsoever. Addtionally, I thought Daniel Craig was severly defficient in class, sophistication and looks. He looked pretty much like a beaten up POW who managed to escape some detention facility located in the middle of no where, in pursuit of a means of living. The only thing I am a little impressed about the movie is Bond's Car. Action sequence was lousy. Romance scene was pathetic because Daniel Craig is lacking the charm, smoothness and looks. Overall, I was tottally dissapointed and NO WAY does this Bond Movie do justice to the long legacy of Bond characters like Sean Connery, Roger Moore (My favorite Bond), and Pierce Brosnan. I don't know what the director was thinking. Expand
  28. Constant
    Nov 25, 2006
    4
    First of all this is very violent a film. I suppose you wouldn't expect James Bond to punch like Arnold Schwartzenegger, would you? Well now he does. Where is the wit? Everything is so heavy-handed. This film is so full of flaws. It tries to make the JB series head somewhere else, but this goes nowhere. Would you believe they made a James Bond film without the gunbarrel sequence? First of all this is very violent a film. I suppose you wouldn't expect James Bond to punch like Arnold Schwartzenegger, would you? Well now he does. Where is the wit? Everything is so heavy-handed. This film is so full of flaws. It tries to make the JB series head somewhere else, but this goes nowhere. Would you believe they made a James Bond film without the gunbarrel sequence? Without a proper title song? Without a Moneypenny scene? The first hour or so with the endless fight scenes is totally useless and a pain for the eyes, but I guess that must be what pleases American crowds... The film only starts when it gets to the novel plot, i.e. the casino etc. The only good point I can see to this film is that it sticks fairly to the book, but then who cares since I must have been the only person in the theater having read the novel? Believe me, Bond on screen died long ago. Expand
  29. JackD.
    Nov 26, 2006
    5
    Just an average movie. The high critical review caused me to anticipate an amazing film. However, the movie just does not deliver. I felt like Bond wasn't Bond at all. He didn't embody an invincible man who is smooth, clever, and likeable. Craig made the character too rough, dark, and unappealing. His new take on Bond may have actually been worse than his acting. Aside from that Just an average movie. The high critical review caused me to anticipate an amazing film. However, the movie just does not deliver. I felt like Bond wasn't Bond at all. He didn't embody an invincible man who is smooth, clever, and likeable. Craig made the character too rough, dark, and unappealing. His new take on Bond may have actually been worse than his acting. Aside from that I didn't hate the bad guy enough. This is due to the poor character development. Also the movie lacks the typical amoiunt of action in a Bond movie as well as the gadgets And where the hell is "Q"? Expand
  30. TommyM.
    Nov 29, 2006
    6
    It's a good movie, but it's not a James Bond movie. Tho I like Daniel Craig and his acting, but for some reason he's just not right for this role. Maybe it's a very difficult move to replace Pierce Brosnan who was just right for this role. Also, in this one, no gadgets and other typical Bond stuff we got use to. But a good movie overall.
  31. ShaunS
    Dec 26, 2006
    6
    Far to long for it's own good. Trying to hard to be to real, give me a bit of gadgits I say. He still can't touch the master Shaun C.
  32. Nov 17, 2012
    6
    Admittedly, Bond had gotten silly by this entry, with invisible cars and diamond-faced baddies. And since the gritty reboot is all the rage, Martin Campbell gives us what can only be dubbed as "The Bond Identity", stripping away not only all the gadgets, but all of the style, the humor and the atmosphere of a Bond film. Sure, it's a fine action film (despite its ending dragging on for farAdmittedly, Bond had gotten silly by this entry, with invisible cars and diamond-faced baddies. And since the gritty reboot is all the rage, Martin Campbell gives us what can only be dubbed as "The Bond Identity", stripping away not only all the gadgets, but all of the style, the humor and the atmosphere of a Bond film. Sure, it's a fine action film (despite its ending dragging on for far too long), and relaunching the franchise after the abysmal Die Another Day was certainly necessary. But much like an immunization, just because something is necessary doesn't mean its fun. Expand
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. What a relief to escape the series' increasing bondage to high-tech gimmicks in favor of intrigue and suspense featuring richly nuanced characters and women who think the body's sexiest organ is the brain.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    Craig comes closer to the author's original conception of this exceptionally long-lived male fantasy figure than anyone since early Sean Connery.
  3. This Bond is haunted, not yet housebroken, still figuring out the persona. In Casino Royale, the reset button has been pressed in the manner of "Batman Begins."