Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 17, 2006
8.5
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 1286 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,125
Mixed:
69
Negative:
92
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
NilramN.Aug 31, 2009
Plot was Choppy hard to follow. How could Bond have Just been promoted?????? that is on of the many things in this film that Bothered me. Craig was way to serious and without emotion. In Jokes if there were any were hard to catch. Hated it. Plot was Choppy hard to follow. How could Bond have Just been promoted?????? that is on of the many things in this film that Bothered me. Craig was way to serious and without emotion. In Jokes if there were any were hard to catch. Hated it. wont be watching the next one till it makes it to TV....I wont Pay to see this crap again..not even on DVD. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BrianP.Nov 18, 2006
This is the worst Bond ever. There was no class to this new Bond, No humor, dark, dark, dark!! Too much violence just for violence sake. I was really disappointed. And I don't want to see any gross torture scenes in the movies any more. This is the worst Bond ever. There was no class to this new Bond, No humor, dark, dark, dark!! Too much violence just for violence sake. I was really disappointed. And I don't want to see any gross torture scenes in the movies any more. Enough said. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AnonymousMCNov 18, 2006
I can't believe the raving critiques for this film. This was not only the worst James Bond I ever saw, it was also one of the worst film I saw. Everybody over-seriousness, plotless story, gratuitous violence, incomprehensible dialogues.I can't believe the raving critiques for this film. This was not only the worst James Bond I ever saw, it was also one of the worst film I saw. Everybody over-seriousness, plotless story, gratuitous violence, incomprehensible dialogues. An utter waste of (over-long) time and money. I actually feel cheated and robbed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
PatrickW.Nov 19, 2006
Horrible. Absolutely horrible. The movie's too long, boring, has no "enemy," and Craig will never be Brosnan or Connery...Ugh.. Just got the chills thinking about this "movie."
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
KerryNov 26, 2006
I must admit, I went into this with quite a strong prejudice against Daniel Craig, but sadly he was not the main problem with this movie. Don't get me wrong, his lack of timing, delivery and style were awful and with an actor more I must admit, I went into this with quite a strong prejudice against Daniel Craig, but sadly he was not the main problem with this movie. Don't get me wrong, his lack of timing, delivery and style were awful and with an actor more suited to play Bond, perhaps the film could have scored a five. The violence is too graphic. Bond is a fantasy, to bring reality in to the portrayal of the story is ridiculous. It was too long and then when it finally did end there was no resolution to the plot. Equally annoying was the blatant product placements for sony, google, Body Worlds (which btw is even dumber than this film) and about 5 000 other products. Then there was the whole set up to show us 'why Bond can't commit to a woman'. Actually the entire premise of seeing what made Bond the way he is was handled in such a heavy-handed way that you could almost see Freud and Jung standing at the corners of the screen with pointers to ensure that it wasn't too subtle. The line about Bond not caring if the martini was shaken or stirred made me want to slap the writers. Whoever was responsible for the script was given too much freedom and not enough editing. Moneypenny wasn't even mentionned! You could practically see Judi Dench cringing through her scenes. Craig made the best of a script where Bond morphed into the Terminator, relying solely on brawn and ignoring his brain. And to be blunt, I could have done without all the scenes of him in a speedo (or less). I get it, the man is in good shape. That's not the point of a Bond film. Lastly, to add insult to injury, THERE WERE NO GADGETS! This was not a Bond movie. In fact, based on this dreck, I will see another Bond film even if Daniel Craig is in it, because there is no way it could be worse than this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ToddM.Nov 29, 2006
There are two moments of hope for this new "Bond", the opening scene stolen by the gravity defying black actor, and the coloring of the opening scene of the car chase in which disappointment is deepened by the wreck of a beauty by the There are two moments of hope for this new "Bond", the opening scene stolen by the gravity defying black actor, and the coloring of the opening scene of the car chase in which disappointment is deepened by the wreck of a beauty by the avoidance of the other "wanna" be. With innane dialog, horrific acting (Dench exempt), no Q or Money Penny and complete lack of English suave, this is the worst bond ever! OMG, they have destroyed the bond cache in one stroke. Sad! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SteveH.Dec 11, 2006
This was a rip off of Austin Powers. They should just gone the usual way and highjacked nuclear weapons, at least that would be a plot. Way too many action scenes and my favorite moment: Bonds supposedly gorgeous girlfriend comes into the This was a rip off of Austin Powers. They should just gone the usual way and highjacked nuclear weapons, at least that would be a plot. Way too many action scenes and my favorite moment: Bonds supposedly gorgeous girlfriend comes into the casino to distract the players. She succeeded in scarying everybody with all that makeup. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AB.Dec 10, 2006
This new Bond movie was dreadful to say the least. Credit to Daniel Craig for bringing a different dimension to the Bond character, but that was marred by poor action sequences (where people have said 'great action', I want to This new Bond movie was dreadful to say the least. Credit to Daniel Craig for bringing a different dimension to the Bond character, but that was marred by poor action sequences (where people have said 'great action', I want to know: WHERE?!?!), poor use of dialogue, weak 'super villian', incomplete continuation and confusingly rubbish storyline. Oh and it dragged on too long and it was one of the WORST endings I have seen ever ... EVER! Note to people: Do not waste 2+ hours of your time watching this film. It's awful. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JensS.Dec 2, 2006
This is probably the worst Bond movie ever. Hopefully Craig will be a one time appearance. Each Bond actor over the decade had it's own style. We had the gentleman style Sean Connery (probably the best Bond ever), the charming Roger This is probably the worst Bond movie ever. Hopefully Craig will be a one time appearance. Each Bond actor over the decade had it's own style. We had the gentleman style Sean Connery (probably the best Bond ever), the charming Roger Moore and many more. Some with more style, others with less. What has Craig to offer? His style is violence no matter what. Very sad. Bond movies used to be so much. Tension, car chases, action, humorous dialog and a lot more. What do we have now? Sad car chases in cars nobody wants to see. Bond in a Ford? Please, I don't even want a Ford from a car rental place if I can avoid it... The parking lot in front of the hotel was another funny scene. Cheap American cars where ever you look. Please, we are supposed to be in Europe! Rich people in Europe don't even think about American cars in their nightmares... What was the producer thinking? I mean think about it. Bond is meeting with people to play in a multi-million dollar poker game and nobody had any money left to get a nice car!? What a joke! The dialog was also pretty sad. I mean where did the funny lines go? Where were the gadgets? Where was Q? I am suspicious he didn't want to give any gadgets to Craig to avoid him returning for another "Bond on Crack" movie... I had high expectations and I was disappointed all the way. My good advise to people: If you haven't been unfortunate enough to have already seen it, skip it. Trust me. You want to keep Bond in a better memory than this movie... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MikeDec 27, 2006
How did this movie get so many positive reviews? There are numerous illogical moments in this movie, Why does every "action" movie have to be so dumb?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
HappyKillmoreDec 7, 2006
Pathetic. No charm, no class, no hot Bond girl, weak villain, non-stop beatings, awful fight scenes, sadistic beating, no Q, no wit, no jokes, no MoneyPenny, use of cell phones, product placement. Simply awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MikeB.Nov 19, 2007
Dreadful film to watch as a bond movie watcher I found it without any plot to follow or decent dialog Bond movies have always been good to watch up to now, but this film lets the side down.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
LarryM.Dec 9, 2007
By far the worst Bond ever. EVER.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MariaE.Mar 12, 2007
Bad Bond, Bad movie. Most uncharming Bond, movie was not the typical Bond (calm, cool & collected) movie. Where is Pierce??? Bring him back!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SimonM.Mar 26, 2007
Worst Bond ever. No charm, no humor and what Bond would ever leave a hot woman in a hotel room alone ! No wit, no "Q", no cool gadgets, no panache. What we have is Robbocopp who moves like Star Trek and speaks 30 words in the first 30 Worst Bond ever. No charm, no humor and what Bond would ever leave a hot woman in a hotel room alone ! No wit, no "Q", no cool gadgets, no panache. What we have is Robbocopp who moves like Star Trek and speaks 30 words in the first 30 minutes. They stuck a Ford Taurus (for 14$million) - what Bond would drive a Ford ?! I think this movies was made for teenage girls to see Daniel Craig (whose face looks like he's Russian and run over by a truck) getting out of the water. Lousy in all respects. A dumb action movie no imagination. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RobertS.Jun 17, 2007
Finally George Lazenby has been stripped of his title as the worst bond. Daniel Craig offers a new brand, which betrays the classic mold and conventions of the genre. Bond is an idealised hero not a human being. This attempts to give him a Finally George Lazenby has been stripped of his title as the worst bond. Daniel Craig offers a new brand, which betrays the classic mold and conventions of the genre. Bond is an idealised hero not a human being. This attempts to give him a human side just makes his false and stale. And the relationship between him and the leading lady attempts to be meaningful but is pretentious and banal. The increasingly elaborate gadgets of bond are detracting from the excitement, and the action sequences which have always been over the to top are now becoming so bizarre that can not truly enjoy them anymore. As another review said nearly or the classic trademarks have been abandoned from the walter ppk to the classic aston martin and poker is not sophisticated enough for bond. And the humour lacks the wit and well timed placement of its predecessors. Indeed drastic measures are needed to salvage the bond formula. A start would be firing Craig and maybe considering making a period film so you could justify in the audiences mind returning to the glorious roots. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JimLJul 21, 2007
This was easily the most disappointing Bond film ever. Daniel Craig is just not believable as James Bond, he was totally miscast in the role. The story fell apart in several places and was never able to fully recover. I can't believe This was easily the most disappointing Bond film ever. Daniel Craig is just not believable as James Bond, he was totally miscast in the role. The story fell apart in several places and was never able to fully recover. I can't believe that I wasted my money on the DVD. Had I seen it at a budget theater, which I almost did, I would have never bought the DVD. I guess I'll be selling it on ebay for a fraction of what I had to pay for it? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BrianCJan 11, 2009
Incredibly boring, uninvolving mess. As a standalone film, it would get 2 stars. Measured as a Bond film, it doesnt fit. Bond films can be rewatched and rewatched. Casino Royale is the exception. It invokes an immediate and visceral response Incredibly boring, uninvolving mess. As a standalone film, it would get 2 stars. Measured as a Bond film, it doesnt fit. Bond films can be rewatched and rewatched. Casino Royale is the exception. It invokes an immediate and visceral response to see what else is on. Daniel Craig does mumble, making an overly involved script that less coherent. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MDMar 27, 2009
As an action movie, I would give it a 4 or 5, taking multiple points off for unconvincing and unlikable actors, but as a Bond movie I give it a very sad, dissapointed zero. DC is a fine actor, but never looks, acts, or sounds like James Bond As an action movie, I would give it a 4 or 5, taking multiple points off for unconvincing and unlikable actors, but as a Bond movie I give it a very sad, dissapointed zero. DC is a fine actor, but never looks, acts, or sounds like James Bond should. After the first third of the movie, he is clearly a mean sociopath with no charm and no interest in using his brain. I endured the rest of the movie, but was pretty much repulsed by the movie by then. I guess I'll watch the new Q of S movie, but only because I've been a Bond fan since the 70s. Very sad... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MicahZ.Nov 23, 2006
Daniel Craig desperately tries to be Bond in this new action adventure film, donning the super-spy's tuxedo and attemting to stand in the wake of his predecessors, but his lack of sophistication downplay's his believability as the Daniel Craig desperately tries to be Bond in this new action adventure film, donning the super-spy's tuxedo and attemting to stand in the wake of his predecessors, but his lack of sophistication downplay's his believability as the Legend and brings him a far cry from Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. From the rash, thug-like tactics his character is originally supposed to have to his taste for only married-women, the sudden switch of his womanizing to a true-blue loyal lover is some-what puzzling, and his lack of a debonaire and gracious charm leaves the film feeling gaunt and missleading. There will never be another Bond like Pierce Brosnan, where, even in the last film "Die Another Day" he flawlessly executed the role: even when strolling into the lobby of a 5-star hotel with a ragged beard, long hair and medic-patient attire. There is no doubt in any Bond fan's mind . . . that is James Bond. Daniel Craig doesn't have the looks or the attitude to pull it off, thus no matter how hard he tries, Daniel Craig will never be James Bond. I give this movie a 2 out of 10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MichaelRNov 11, 2007
Its pure crap.Daniel Craig is not believable as James Bond and thats why its practically unbearable to watch.He makes the movie seem boring.Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan would have been great.I'm a huge James Bond fan.I've watched Its pure crap.Daniel Craig is not believable as James Bond and thats why its practically unbearable to watch.He makes the movie seem boring.Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan would have been great.I'm a huge James Bond fan.I've watched all 21 of them.Without Sean or Pierce Bond is dead,unless the director searches long and hard for a believable person to play Bond.The person has to have a certain look for the role you can't give the bond role to just any actor. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
CalebM.Dec 19, 2007
For a movie, its all right, but for a bond movie i thought it was terrible. About 3/4 of this movie is him sitting at a table playing poker. Where are the Gadgets? why did he wreck his car after 10 seconds of driving? I can hardly consider For a movie, its all right, but for a bond movie i thought it was terrible. About 3/4 of this movie is him sitting at a table playing poker. Where are the Gadgets? why did he wreck his car after 10 seconds of driving? I can hardly consider this movie a bond movie, it was just another action movie. Plus Daniel Craig isn't bond-like at all. He has no class, hes just all about wrecking things. He isn't even British either. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TashBDec 22, 2007
I totally agree with Michael R and Jay L. This film doesn't deserve even a "1"! It was a total disgrace, so cheesy at the end too. No-one can beat Sean Connery and Pierce. They completely got the wrong person to play Bond, therefore, I totally agree with Michael R and Jay L. This film doesn't deserve even a "1"! It was a total disgrace, so cheesy at the end too. No-one can beat Sean Connery and Pierce. They completely got the wrong person to play Bond, therefore, they've messed up the whole film. No new gadgets- crashed the Aston Martin! Very disappointing overall. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
Duke_NukemOct 13, 2015
Connery is the ultimate Bond, Moore is the funny Bond, Dalton is the cool Bond, Brosnan is the suave Bond and Craig is... the ugly Bond?

I have no idea why they came up with the ludicrous idea to pick Craig as the new Bond and why they
Connery is the ultimate Bond, Moore is the funny Bond, Dalton is the cool Bond, Brosnan is the suave Bond and Craig is... the ugly Bond?

I have no idea why they came up with the ludicrous idea to pick Craig as the new Bond and why they decided to make Bond movies so dark and boring.

The scene in the casino should be a return to the old Bond, remember the first scene in the first Bond movie was featuring Sean Connery in a casino. But in this movie they succeed in making the scene so slow and boring it hurts. It even makes the villain's eye bleed, can you blame him? Watching this movie made me wanna poke my eyes with a pencil too.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews