Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 17, 2006
8.5
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 1295 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,134
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)
9
eagleeyevikingDec 13, 2013
Casino Royale rejuvenates the Bond franchise with a beautifully crafted film complete with wit, emotion, plot and of course, enthralling action sequences.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
9
Andy92Sep 15, 2010
i really enjoyed this bond film i wasn't sure about Daniel Craig as bond at first but he actually performed very well in this film. the plot of the film was also well written better then a lot of other bond films
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
moviegrabbagJun 13, 2011
I was actually really surprised. Daniel Craig was an amazing Bond and Eva Green to me was one of the best Bond girls. The plot was actually really good and believable. The acting was great. The only problems I have with the movie is that itsI was actually really surprised. Daniel Craig was an amazing Bond and Eva Green to me was one of the best Bond girls. The plot was actually really good and believable. The acting was great. The only problems I have with the movie is that its a prequil but the technoligy was far better then the other films and M looks older. But once you get past those details this movie was great. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
axelkochNov 2, 2012
Simply the best Bond of all times. Also if Daniel Craig isn't the best actor I could imagine for this role, this is subordinate because of the great supporting actors. Eva Green is fetchingly good and Mads Mikkelsen as the antagonist is alsoSimply the best Bond of all times. Also if Daniel Craig isn't the best actor I could imagine for this role, this is subordinate because of the great supporting actors. Eva Green is fetchingly good and Mads Mikkelsen as the antagonist is also very well played. The whole film consists of so much rememberable action scenes, every single one is just awesome! The long break between this and the last Bond was essential, with the new techniques there are better visual and audio effects, that improve the whole movie quite much. 'Casino Royale' is a legendary story, the ending is absolutely great and I also enjoyed the poker game. It's a little step away from being a perfect action movie, but is surely one of the best I've seen in years and everything just works in this film. Simply awesome! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
MovieGuysSep 26, 2013
Casino Royale is by far the best of the newest Bonds, with an exciting premise, masterful execution, and an overall Bond feel to it that is mesmerizingly good.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
JorjiCostavaApr 20, 2014
Perhaps the best Bond film ever, and one of the best action films I've ever seen. It's grittier and more violent than the previous films, but it is purely entertaining.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
IMAX500May 22, 2014
OK Better than Sky fall. You can see this movie. this is one of my first movies with torture. First bond movie with a longest poker game in the movie.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
SMURPH44Jun 1, 2011
Easily one of the best, is not the best, Bond films since the days of Connery. The dark and gritty tones are a welcome change of pace, and the story still manages to infuse humor in the right places, and in my opinion also in the rightEasily one of the best, is not the best, Bond films since the days of Connery. The dark and gritty tones are a welcome change of pace, and the story still manages to infuse humor in the right places, and in my opinion also in the right quantity. Easy 10. Expand
14 of 15 users found this helpful141
All this user's reviews
8
grandpajoe6191Sep 24, 2011
The movie is a revolution to the Bond franchise. Mark Campbell presents to the audience that James Bond is not a hero who kills the bad guys and gets laid with girls using his gadgets and slick words. Using Daniel Craig, he presents a BondThe movie is a revolution to the Bond franchise. Mark Campbell presents to the audience that James Bond is not a hero who kills the bad guys and gets laid with girls using his gadgets and slick words. Using Daniel Craig, he presents a Bond that actually gets hurt and looses the ones he love. Through this change of portrayal, Bond has become a stronger character and a worthy franchise to watch. Kudos Campbell (and you too Craig)!!! Expand
8 of 11 users found this helpful83
All this user's reviews
3
KimomarudotcomDec 29, 2012
I did not like this movie at all. The action scenes are waaaaaaaaaaaay too long, so long that you'll forget how and why they're even happening. Bond jumps all over the place, so much so that he reminds me more of Super Mario than anythingI did not like this movie at all. The action scenes are waaaaaaaaaaaay too long, so long that you'll forget how and why they're even happening. Bond jumps all over the place, so much so that he reminds me more of Super Mario than anything else. The plot is difficult to appreciate, there's just nothing the viewer is able to relate to in this movie. The only bright spot is Judy Dench, who is wonderful in any role she plays. Maybe this movie is worth watching just for her scenes. Daniel Craig is good, too, but the movie doesn't take advantage of his strong screen presence. Hopefully Skyfall will be better? Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
frozen82Jan 3, 2015
Why is this so highly praised is one of universe mysteries to me.
Its one of the most boring dull stupid films I have ever watched in my entire life.
I have never had to force myself to sit through a film with multiple pauses to breath and
Why is this so highly praised is one of universe mysteries to me.
Its one of the most boring dull stupid films I have ever watched in my entire life.
I have never had to force myself to sit through a film with multiple pauses to breath and rest my brain from boredom. Only worse movie experience for me was "Give them hell Malone" its that bad.
The black guy chasing scene...omfg...its so long and so pointless and so stupid.
Its not a Bond film, Craig is an ok actor but he's all the opposite of Bond. He looks like a construction worker, more like a bad guy from Bond films than main character. I got some feedback that he's attractive to women in that lumberjack sort of way so that's the appeal...ok, to each their own but Bond is not a lumberjack.
Even as a "not Bond action film" its shallow uninteresting and stupid. Everything rolls around tracing cell phones, the main bad guy is totally forgettable, the plot is pointless...getting money for terrorism ( not something explicit but terrorism as an occupation maybe ? lol ) by playing high stakes poker..i mean wtf? who come up with that **** lol
Only redeeming quality is Eva Green, beautiful woman ( not that great of on actress but still) but even she is poorly used.
Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
IamMensaMay 28, 2012
This movie was as laughable as they come. They un-naturally included all the present trends at the time i.e. par-core and texas hold em (in which they in detail had to explain through script what was going on to heighten the atmosphere of theThis movie was as laughable as they come. They un-naturally included all the present trends at the time i.e. par-core and texas hold em (in which they in detail had to explain through script what was going on to heighten the atmosphere of the anti-climatic card game for those watching who didn't know even the basics of texas hold em.) And the scene where it's supposed to portray Bond as a sex symbol women love and men want to be is a slow mow of him emerging from the ocean looking like a **** old man will get an audible hardy bellow every time. For the older generation Connery will always be untouchable, for mine its Bronson. And that's it/ This movie truly is hilarious. Best Comedy of 2006. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
JeffF.Nov 20, 2006
The new Bond is a humorless stiff. One long pointless chase is followed by a long pointless fistfight followed by a long pointless card game followed by a long pointless shootout. We know who is going to win the poker tournament just get on The new Bond is a humorless stiff. One long pointless chase is followed by a long pointless fistfight followed by a long pointless card game followed by a long pointless shootout. We know who is going to win the poker tournament just get on with it. The movie just goes on and on and on. Other than Die Another Day this is the worst Bond ever. The thrill is gone. Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful
5
SamMar 19, 2007
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.
3 of 7 users found this helpful
0
AndrewPJul 5, 2009
A James Bond film is a classy spy movie with a lot of action and story, but not too much of either to make it unbalanced. Casino Royale is a poker movie. Think about it. It starts with some talking, then there's a (very cool) action A James Bond film is a classy spy movie with a lot of action and story, but not too much of either to make it unbalanced. Casino Royale is a poker movie. Think about it. It starts with some talking, then there's a (very cool) action scene, then...poker. And more poker. And even more poker. Then there's that scene when bond gets poisoned and nearly dies, and then more poker. The over involved plot doesn't have to do with bond taking out the bad guy as normal, instead he has to make him bankrupt in a, no joke here, game of high stakes poker. I think what really does it for me is seeing bond striped naked, tied to a chair, and whipped repeatedly in the area a man does not want to be whipped in. And he doesn't use his whits or cunning to escape, but instead he has to be rescued. Its just insulting. Also, no Q means no cool gadgets. Bond, the franchise that first had the idea of equipping spys with ultra high tech gadgets, suddenly has no gadgets. Personally, when i think bond, two of the first things that come to mind are the laser watch and the Aston with missiles under the head lights and now both of these icons are gone. Its just sad. This movie left me with a hollow, empty feeling that made me go back and watch one of the twenty superior bond films. No charm. No heart. No soul. 0 out of 10. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
0
carimDec 4, 2006
One of the absolute worst films I've sat through in a very long time. It was painful to say the least.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
0
Fail1Mar 3, 2011
An absolute complete waste of time. This film is terrible anybody who has rated this film as good is more than likely drunk on drugs or just plan retarded. Its the worst film I have ever seen. The director want to be shot as soon as possibleAn absolute complete waste of time. This film is terrible anybody who has rated this film as good is more than likely drunk on drugs or just plan retarded. Its the worst film I have ever seen. The director want to be shot as soon as possible Daniel Craig is just a joke (His acting is that of a 15 year old yob) and the rest is just a fail. I feel that strongly about this film that I have created an account just to slate it. Destroyed the bong legacy, and replace it with rubbish!!!! I am disgusted Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
1
DaveApr 5, 2009
Stupid. Boring. Sadistic. Implausible. Charmless. Illogical. Cheesy. Lame. Impossible, etc etc Personally i think we should nuke the earth, maybe a better species than humans will evolve, and movies like this never get past the moronic script stage.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JCampbellOct 17, 2007
The positive reviews of this picture reflects how shallow and frankly stupid people in general are creatively. First, Craig is all wrong for Bond. Since a lot of people are nothing but criminals, no wonder he appeals to them. And he's a The positive reviews of this picture reflects how shallow and frankly stupid people in general are creatively. First, Craig is all wrong for Bond. Since a lot of people are nothing but criminals, no wonder he appeals to them. And he's a poor actor, mumbling his lines. Violent movie from start to finish. The original story by the way has little resemblance to this mess. Should be titled "JAMES BOMB" Casino Royale is a Royale FLOP! Bond is supposed to be a gentleman GQ type. Suave yet physical. Roger Moore was perfect. Good-bye Cubby, too bad your kid drove Bond into the ground in just one movie. If you want to change everything-MAKE ANOTHER FILM! Sasino Royale was not the box-office success it hoped for, and the above reasons are why. Next time, hire the right actor for Bond, and stck with the story that has worked! Oh, the torture scenes-just great to watch, huh! Violent, sleazy movie with Bond an anti-hero criminal. Hmmm, how hip. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
ZZZZZboringMay 8, 2007
Worst Bond ever!!! Ok this is before Sean Connery and everything, how come he's using cellular phones and driving 2006 Aston martins? The movie is horrible. Craig's input is spending six months in the gym the dialogue is nothing. Worst Bond ever!!! Ok this is before Sean Connery and everything, how come he's using cellular phones and driving 2006 Aston martins? The movie is horrible. Craig's input is spending six months in the gym the dialogue is nothing. The humor is completely gone I mean Bond used to be fun and unrealistic that was the whole point of it. It is one long commercial for Sony and Aston martin. I mean they must have showed off the complete line of Sony Ericsson cellphones and all the wonderful things they have in them. And what kind of pussyass Bond has a defibrillator in his car incredible. Come on Bond doesn't play poker he plays Baccarat every f.cking person in the universe knows that. It's just so sold out Sony controlling Ok we need someone who has spent his life in the gym next to out cellphones. Bond doesn't concern himself with tells. This is the worst movie ever. Anyone would have made a better Bond. Bond is not boring. Homer Simpson would have made a better bond. George bush would have made a better Bond. Any one with intelligence would have made a better Bond. Even Madonna. And I'm guessing the average of people in here is 7. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
RDNov 10, 2008
Terrible. I felt as if I was channel surfing, first a dark and cold blooded assasination, then an action packed areobatic scene, quick onto explosions, oil tankers and aeroplanes no wait switch to a dramatic aka boring casino scene. Time for Terrible. I felt as if I was channel surfing, first a dark and cold blooded assasination, then an action packed areobatic scene, quick onto explosions, oil tankers and aeroplanes no wait switch to a dramatic aka boring casino scene. Time for a sadistic and disturbing torture scene and finally the death of the villian, was he the villain? Who shot him? It wasn't Bond. Oh well but wait there's more an abrupt and unexplainable change to a story of romance and betrayl. Culminating in the death of the bond girl. The plot seemed thrown together from several different ideas none of which came together. Visually unappealing, lacking anything cinematic in the form of special effects. What little I noticed of the musical score grated on the ears. As for the main character Bond was not reinvented or grittier he was just less. Less charming, less intelligent, less talkative. In fact everyone else did the talking for him, they all talked at him while he responded with bored stares. When Daniel Craig did talk as many others have mentioned he mumbled, making a discontinuous plot even more disjointed. Definately yet another example of current movie makers ruining a long standing franchise, ie. Star Trek, Star Wars, Indianna Jones, etc etc. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
CobiWanDec 17, 2006
I am sorry but I was really disappointed...not much of a love story and a long poker game...lacking real bond action.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
DanielA.Dec 15, 2007
This movie is a load of crap. Most bond films weren't killing everyone so violently. He is made out to be a vicious killer. Nothing against violence in movies, But James Bond When you compare the older classic Bond movies This guy This movie is a load of crap. Most bond films weren't killing everyone so violently. He is made out to be a vicious killer. Nothing against violence in movies, But James Bond When you compare the older classic Bond movies This guy doesn't have the Carisma of Either a Roger Moore or a Sean Connery. I'm truly disappointed. I want my money back. Pierce Brosnan did a better job even. Maybe it was the story But I didn't buy in to his character. Truly not my bag baby. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
ChristopherS.Mar 14, 2007
In an effort to reinvent the Bond franchise the filmmakers succeeded only in burying it. The best part of this movie ends at the 11 minute mark the ensuing 2+ hours are completely and utterly forgettable. Daniel Craig, an otherwise fine In an effort to reinvent the Bond franchise the filmmakers succeeded only in burying it. The best part of this movie ends at the 11 minute mark the ensuing 2+ hours are completely and utterly forgettable. Daniel Craig, an otherwise fine actor, is comically miscast. His pug face and squat muscular body are totally inappropriate for the role. In fact, apart from Caterina Murino, Casino Royale will be remembered as the Bond film featuring the most unattractive cast ever assembled. My advice; pickup Mission Impossible 3 and leave this waste of time on the shelf. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
baym.Nov 21, 2006
This is not bond the icon.... this is a very supid bond movie... i don't care about the good ratings of the movie critics... we the public viewer make it a big hits... make it an invincible bond just like the old days... daniel? is not This is not bond the icon.... this is a very supid bond movie... i don't care about the good ratings of the movie critics... we the public viewer make it a big hits... make it an invincible bond just like the old days... daniel? is not invincible in looks, style, and humor as well... that is how an icon is created... by the way he is bond... make him a global icon... u better check out the box office world wide... it is not the same james bond movie that still showing in cinema in almost a month.. but one week maybe... and to the producer... does it concern you? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
CiaranC.Nov 29, 2006
I did enjoy the first 5 minutes and the inital chase but it deteriated quickly. The Casino scenes were laughable and but the time it reached the climax I'd reached my limit also. How is this considered a good movie by critics I'll I did enjoy the first 5 minutes and the inital chase but it deteriated quickly. The Casino scenes were laughable and but the time it reached the climax I'd reached my limit also. How is this considered a good movie by critics I'll never know. Daniel Craig was dreadful, this movie should never have been made as the story of Casino Royale is substandard. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JayW.Feb 16, 2007
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
SparklingApr 2, 2007
Run away. I read a review saying this was a post Bourne Supremacy Bond fim- a film I liked. This film was pants. I had high hopes- such high hopes. Danny-boy is alright, don't get me wrong. Have you not see it yet? You decide.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
timmNov 21, 2006
Ok. so... this movie kinda sux. new and different doesn't mean better when the plot sux and there is no character development whatsoever. i challenge anyone to tell me who the bad guys actually were. and the guy with one sunglass! uhoh! Ok. so... this movie kinda sux. new and different doesn't mean better when the plot sux and there is no character development whatsoever. i challenge anyone to tell me who the bad guys actually were. and the guy with one sunglass! uhoh! he looks scary! and he really wants that briefcase! retarded. i was soooo disappointed, especially with all those good reviews, saying this reinvents Bond. i like the feel of the movie, the aura, bond's character, and nothing else. and what was with that ending? i suppose if there's no plot there can't really be an ending, huh. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
DsdsfTeteteMar 26, 2007
Bond is the bad guy in this movie. He's just an as.hole picking on this guy in a poker game. Plot made no sense. Action was few and far in between. And the story made no sense.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JOES.Aug 31, 2007
Casino Royale was meant to be a more down to earth bond film. Too bad it sucked. If the directors really wanted to make a more realistic bond, they should have made a more From Russia with Love type realistic. A bond movie shouldn't be Casino Royale was meant to be a more down to earth bond film. Too bad it sucked. If the directors really wanted to make a more realistic bond, they should have made a more From Russia with Love type realistic. A bond movie shouldn't be totally fake and stupid, (cough Die Another Day cough!) but it shouldn't be so realistic that bond goes through cardiac arrest. Also, Craig just plain sucks! If they wanted a more "realistic" bond, anybody would have been better! (Clive Owen anybody?) The movie is way to long. It is the first time I was actually bored during a bond film. Mads Mikkelsen is simply unimposing and anti-climatic. I think that my 8-year-old-brother could have beat the crap out of him. Also, the casino scene is SOOOOOOO LOOOONG! Bond plays Baccarat, not poker, but that's not important. Daniel Craig mumbles for the whole movie. Also, if they wanted a more plausible film, why then, put in some jamacan guy who has been bitten by a radioactive spider! I know this review is very inconsistent, but the film is so bad that i don't know where to start! Oh, yeah, the only good part was when Bond met Mr. White. Hopefully the next one will be better. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
NeilV.Nov 17, 2006
Im not sure where all these "A" reviews came from...it truly baffles me! If anyone out there is a true Bond fan, there is no way in hell that this movie could be appreciated. Daniel Craig is the worst Bond I have ever seen...I think the Im not sure where all these "A" reviews came from...it truly baffles me! If anyone out there is a true Bond fan, there is no way in hell that this movie could be appreciated. Daniel Craig is the worst Bond I have ever seen...I think the people that casted him were on crack. Everyone knows 007 is a tall, dark hair, 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. This is an insult to Mr. Sean Connery...the greatest, and only true Bond... Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
DerrickHDec 11, 2006
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
jwt7000Nov 20, 2012
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 moreLoved 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. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
Tss5078Feb 23, 2013
I've never been a fan of James Bond. Probably, because I grew up with Pierce Brosnan as 007 and he sucked. I decide to give the series another shot, not because of Bond, but rather Daniel Craig. I have been a fan of Craig's for some time,I've never been a fan of James Bond. Probably, because I grew up with Pierce Brosnan as 007 and he sucked. I decide to give the series another shot, not because of Bond, but rather Daniel Craig. I have been a fan of Craig's for some time, having seen several of the films from overseas. I knew then that he would be a huge action star and now he's 007. As for my first Bond movie, it was pretty good. Craig was fantastic and avoided much of the cliché Bond moments that most of us have come to loath. The film was entertaining, but also pretty predictable and much longer than it needed to be. I was also very unimpressed by the bad guys. I thought Bond villains were supposed to be classic, but these guys were rather forgettable. I'm not in love with the Bond character, but this film did open my eyes a little bit and I probably will check out Quantum of Solace in the near future. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
OfficialSamDec 23, 2012
Best Bond movie ever, those who don't agree obviously don't know a good movie. To all of those guys who hate this movie ( luckily there aren't many, u mad brooooooo?)
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
9
vikesh2206Nov 9, 2014
Casino Royale rejuvenates the Bond franchise with a beautifully crafted film complete with wit, emotion, plot and of course, enthralling action sequences.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
MrMovieBuffOct 29, 2015
I remember when this movie was first released and that Daniel Craig was going to play Bond, there was controversy and backlash due to the fact that Craig did not meet everybody's needs as he looked nothing like the Bond we all imagined.

I
I remember when this movie was first released and that Daniel Craig was going to play Bond, there was controversy and backlash due to the fact that Craig did not meet everybody's needs as he looked nothing like the Bond we all imagined.

I had very low expectations with this movie, thinking that it was just going to be a routine Bond film with dumb action, endless gadgets and gimmicks, just like the Pierce Brosnan Bonds were becoming shortly after his debut in 'Goldeneye' (1995).

It seems my disappointment was non-existent, 'Casino Royale' is easily the best Bond movie since 'Goldeneye' (1995), which was also directed by Martin Campbell. This is a much grittier movie with a more vulnerable and human Bond. A character who was once two-dimensional, a character who had nothing but a fancy car, gadgets and women now has personality. This is thanks to Craig's performance mixed with a smart screenplay written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis.

Mads Mikkelsen plays LeChiffre, the main villain in the movie who also has a slice of vulnerability unlike most Bond villains. He is sadistic, but he is also hurt. You have Eva Green as Vesper, James' associate throughout the movie, as a Bond girl, she is one of the best. There is also some vulnerability there as well. All of these characters are human, they are not stereotypes, they are not weighed down by cliches, this movie and the characters are all fresh.

'Casino Royale' is also the first Bond novel written by Ian Fleming and the movie is seen as a reboot for the character and franchise. It makes sense to go back to the drawing board and use the first ever book to re-invent the franchise. The only thing missing in this movie are the characters Q and Moneypenny, but it seems that you can make a Bond movie without them, as long as you add some more depth and dimension to the characters you are focusing on.

'Casino Royale' is great, one of the best Bonds ever. Darker, more personal and more tense than previous outings. The only movie after this that lived up to expectations is 'Skyfall' (2012) which I already reviewed. 'Casino Royale' deserves its 10/10 score.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
BenJ.Dec 1, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JeffM.Mar 4, 2007
Casino Royale is the best Bond film ever and Daniel Craig, as Bond, was awsome. I only wish we can see more of him as Bond in remakes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
R.NicholsApr 8, 2007
Best Bond movie by far. Comparisons to Bourne Supremacy are right. Finally a Bond that's not a wimp, but a killer. Craig is the right actor for the role. Great casting. Hope the next Bond movie keeps with this new approach to Bond.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MaryD.Jan 26, 2010
I enjoyed the action in this movie to make him more of a human event instead of a computer role. Thanks Daniel for your energy throughout the movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
NancyH.Nov 20, 2006
A different kind of Bond...more real. Great action sequences but I think the Eva Green lacks the umph to catch Bond. They should have used the married woman in the movie as the lead female. Movie moves along nicely until 2/3 of the way in A different kind of Bond...more real. Great action sequences but I think the Eva Green lacks the umph to catch Bond. They should have used the married woman in the movie as the lead female. Movie moves along nicely until 2/3 of the way in when we take a pause to watch Bond fall in love...not so believable especially knowing what he was recovering from. Good vein on the re-styling of Bond movies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SeverianNov 20, 2006
I defnitely much prefer the intense, engaging and more personal Daniel Craig to the previous pretty boy Bond. The storyline is fine. (but the self help defibrillator bit is ludicrously unbelievable though). A good and refreshing facelift for I defnitely much prefer the intense, engaging and more personal Daniel Craig to the previous pretty boy Bond. The storyline is fine. (but the self help defibrillator bit is ludicrously unbelievable though). A good and refreshing facelift for the franchise. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DrewF.Nov 20, 2006
Best Bond film since "The Living Daylights" (So that's nearly 20 years!) I admit to being less then enthused when i first heard that Daniel Craig was selected to be the new Bond. I revoke ANY negativity i previously expressed. This guy Best Bond film since "The Living Daylights" (So that's nearly 20 years!) I admit to being less then enthused when i first heard that Daniel Craig was selected to be the new Bond. I revoke ANY negativity i previously expressed. This guy is easily the best Bond since Sean Connery. Film has some sparkling banter between Bond and M, and Bond and Vesper. Movie starts off with one of the most exciting action sequences that the series has ever seen. Great performance by Mads Mikkelsen as the most believable and sympathetic Bond villain to come along in awhile. Great entry in the series. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JamesN.Jan 1, 2007
More realistic than the previous Bond movies which have been too much like cartoons. Daniel Craig does a great job as Bond and the story and intro are great.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
VeraR.Mar 4, 2007
Brilliant! Absolutely loved it! Loved Daniel Craig's Bond - and that after I had been such a firm Pierce Brosnan-Bond fan. The opening scene was great and the action in Uganda was so tense. The Madagascar action was also brilliant! The Brilliant! Absolutely loved it! Loved Daniel Craig's Bond - and that after I had been such a firm Pierce Brosnan-Bond fan. The opening scene was great and the action in Uganda was so tense. The Madagascar action was also brilliant! The only thing I really found extremely irritating and tedious were the initial "bickering" scenes with the accountant - she came across immature, too young and the age gap between them was just too big. The blond girl was also very forgettable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CharlesT.Apr 10, 2007
The best James Bond movie ever made. It is a great fresh movie. It shows the series by doing something something i would not have ever thought of in my whole life and that is creating Daniel Craig into the best Bond ever and making it a great movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RichardK.Apr 1, 2007
Waiting for this movie to come out on DVD is my mistake. I wish I saw this one on the large theatre screen. The most impresive Bond Movie in decades. Daniel Craig brings 007 back to someone we respect & love. This change in style was exactly Waiting for this movie to come out on DVD is my mistake. I wish I saw this one on the large theatre screen. The most impresive Bond Movie in decades. Daniel Craig brings 007 back to someone we respect & love. This change in style was exactly what the Bond franchise needed to save itself. I can't wait to see the next one, this time at the Theatre . Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChrisFMay 14, 2007
As a massive Bond fan this recent remake of the original book of Fleming's series fits the overall storyline extremely well. All of those who ive low ratings for no plot or a stop-start sequence, you are contradicting yourselves in your As a massive Bond fan this recent remake of the original book of Fleming's series fits the overall storyline extremely well. All of those who ive low ratings for no plot or a stop-start sequence, you are contradicting yourselves in your reviews, the film needed the slower poker sections to add tension and depth to the characters and the story, but adds the fast-paced action sequences to bring about the necessary climax to each event. And for all those whining about the lack of the "usual" bond plot items, ie, the moneypenny scene, the gadgets, the corny one-liners; again these are not part of the plot, nor is it the bond of the story that is being told in this film, and for those that claim you are bond fans, you should understand this and appreciate it for what it is, even if it doesn't cover your checklist. For those complaining about the violence, it's unnecessary, it's too dark, too gory, etc; since when have we NEVER seen bond bleed? See Dalton, or Pierce, however, what we do see is an invincible Craig coming back to the table after a huge fight and again a poisoning! And then we see the suave, but still too young and inexperienced to be charming, coming back to match wits against his evil and over-the-top adversary, with plenty of glib comments, "that last hand almost killed me". How anyone could be blind enough to give this film less than 5 is beyond me, especially so-called "bond fans". The only thing left to say about the movie to prove all these confused nay-sayers wrong, is that people voteed with their wallets, making this film one of the top 40 (at least) ranked global grossing films of all time, leaving us with little to doubt, BRING ON BOND #22! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RyanS.Jan 9, 2008
Best Bond film since Goldfinger.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
GaborA.Nov 17, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RobM.Nov 18, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DanB.Nov 19, 2006
It's pretty good, and I enjoyed it, but, all the emotions--I think it's very hard to get emotions to work, in a Bond movie, and they didn't really succeed, here. Not for lack of acting--Craig is just dandy fine--but, something It's pretty good, and I enjoyed it, but, all the emotions--I think it's very hard to get emotions to work, in a Bond movie, and they didn't really succeed, here. Not for lack of acting--Craig is just dandy fine--but, something was missing. Also. Could've used a few more snappy lines--not necessarily on Bond's part but, in general, a bit sharper dialogue. But overall it was pretty good (not that you could get much worse than the last one with the diamond-faced dude) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JadaG.Dec 1, 2006
This film action packed from beginning to nearly end then end. There was one moment that lasted a good 5 minutes that was too long, but everything else meet or exceeded standards. Go and see for yourself.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AbiA.Dec 1, 2006
Excellent action by cast and in particular by Craig. He has graduated handsomely into 007 slot
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
HeathQ.Dec 18, 2006
Although Daniel Craig is not who I would say was the obvious choice (Clive Owen), he plays a kick ass Bond. Dark, mysterious, evil, and all while he is still learning the ropes. What everyone has to remember is that this story was written as Although Daniel Craig is not who I would say was the obvious choice (Clive Owen), he plays a kick ass Bond. Dark, mysterious, evil, and all while he is still learning the ropes. What everyone has to remember is that this story was written as the ORIGINAL Bond Story, before he became a double 0 agent. Yes, Bond is a suave character in the films we have all grown to love, but this is the unexperienced Bond, lover of women, but night quite as slick as he is yet to become. Great film, can't wait for Bond 22. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
VitusP.Dec 28, 2006
This is a James Bond that introduces the stark duality of humanity into the series. Throughout the series of movies we see some very good acting, but next to Craig's bond, everyone else just looks like a comic book character. Another This is a James Bond that introduces the stark duality of humanity into the series. Throughout the series of movies we see some very good acting, but next to Craig's bond, everyone else just looks like a comic book character. Another exciting aspect about this bond movie is that it IS more dependant on the plot and the characters than the gadgets, 2 bit sex scenes, and myriad of explosives. Just to point out, I think the opening ("You Know My Name", appropriately enough) is the first Bond movie not to feature dancing females' nude silhousettes. This suggests that Bond films are becoming more than just toy commercials for middle aged men. Also, it's about time we saw another Bond film based on Ian Flemming's novels. Praise be that they got the first one right. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AzaE.Dec 3, 2006
Great, but where was Q?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
GauthamSDec 7, 2006
Raw, formidable and absolutely humane ! One of the best James Bond Movie .
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JonM.Dec 7, 2006
What a return for Bond, what a debut in the franchise for Daniel Craig. The movie is excellent, dramatic set pieces, tension building plot and clever scripting. This only misses a strong 9 due to slightly overlong love story in the last What a return for Bond, what a debut in the franchise for Daniel Craig. The movie is excellent, dramatic set pieces, tension building plot and clever scripting. This only misses a strong 9 due to slightly overlong love story in the last third of the film. Craig is genius, bettering Brosnan's comic caricature of Bond. His physical presence, charm and wit mean the chases flow, fight scenes crunch like no bond before, and his vocal sparring with enemies and love interests is as sharp as knives. Gone is the Brosnan-Moore cheese fest, a new era of Bond has finally arrived to save the legend! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarloweDec 8, 2006
It was good, full of action. But I'm still not sure where it ended. Was it the torture scene, or final scene in the movie? Maybe I just need to see it again to understand it, but it just seemed like they ended it, because they were It was good, full of action. But I'm still not sure where it ended. Was it the torture scene, or final scene in the movie? Maybe I just need to see it again to understand it, but it just seemed like they ended it, because they were running out of time. When M, mentions about the girl; it reminded me of the Austin Powers 2 line, "we knew all along sadly (about Ms. Kensington)." And there were a lot of long, quiet moments, I found myself wondering into my A.D.D. world during them. But it was good, worth a matinee. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
OrielDec 9, 2006
Captivating. Casino Royale hearkens back to the early days when Bond, played by Connery, was Ian Flemming's creation. Over the years, the Bond franchise had been reduced to fluff with irrelevant but money-making sequels. A huge thanks Captivating. Casino Royale hearkens back to the early days when Bond, played by Connery, was Ian Flemming's creation. Over the years, the Bond franchise had been reduced to fluff with irrelevant but money-making sequels. A huge thanks to the filmmakers who helped bring an old childhood friend back. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoeB.Dec 9, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DougMJan 18, 2007
In looking over the reviews, one thing that keeps coming up is a list of by the numbers Bond cliches that are missing that allegedly make this a bad movie. In "The Living Daylights" commentary, the director mentions that what has kept BondIn looking over the reviews, one thing that keeps coming up is a list of by the numbers Bond cliches that are missing that allegedly make this a bad movie. In "The Living Daylights" commentary, the director mentions that what has kept Bond alive for so long is that he changes with the times. The Bond movies were dying. The Brosnan movies were close to the bottom of the pile in terms of total number of tickets sold amongst Bond movies (not how much money made as a movie ticket costs three times what it did in Connery's day but actual number sold). It was dying. The new Bond is exactly what was needed to reinvent Bond for 2006 and onward. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BarryS.Jan 2, 2007
As a youngster, I loved the Bond films and particularly ones starring Connery. In the years since, I had been growing tired of the cartoonish Bond, the man who could never lose at anything and who, when all else failed, would simply use a As a youngster, I loved the Bond films and particularly ones starring Connery. In the years since, I had been growing tired of the cartoonish Bond, the man who could never lose at anything and who, when all else failed, would simply use a gadget to extricate himself from his dilemma. In fact, from the moment each gadget was issued to him, one could envision just when that life-saving device would come in handy. Everything about Bond had become stale and predictable. Casino Royale is not perfect. The villains roles and their relationships to each other could be better defined and the movie drags in small bits. But the overall product is the first Bond film worth seeing in years. Craig does a great job as the pre-quel Bond. Here's hoping Craig returns and builds on what he has started. With more experience and a growing reputation Bond is poised to act more cleverly and even be outfitted with some state of the art gadgetry, some of which he may not use despite having it. If you like a more realistic Bond and a story that was not simply re-written and repackaged, then you will like the new Bond. I look forward to what is in store for 007 now that he has someplace to go other than cartoon land. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MarkB.Jan 3, 2007
Chomp, chomp, (choke), gulp. That's the sound of a good many 007-watchers, myself included, who spent the last two years or so moaning about Daniel Craig's casting as "the first blond Bond' eating our words. While I'm Chomp, chomp, (choke), gulp. That's the sound of a good many 007-watchers, myself included, who spent the last two years or so moaning about Daniel Craig's casting as "the first blond Bond' eating our words. While I'm still rooting for Clive Owen to take his turn in a few years once the Craig/ Broccoli connection inevitably dries up, I've seldom been so happy to be wrong: Craig gives Bond a rawness and intensity that, for all of Pierce Brosnan's undeniable charm in the role, has been missing ever since the vastly underrated Timothy Dalton strapped on the Walther PPK for two money-losing late 80s installments. Craig makes Martin Campbell's fully honorable attempt to rebuild Bond from the ground up an unqualified success; if you sat through The Sum of All Fears, the disastrous 2002 attempt to redefine Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan as a single Ben Affleck rather than a married-with-children Harrison Ford, you know what a dicey endeavor that reinventing an established character can be. Amazingly, Casino Royale, like Peter Jackson's brilliant do-over of King Kong from a year before, manages the heady task of both honoring its predecessors and correcting their mistakes: after Goldfinger in 1965, most of the Bond films--good, bad or indifferent--have been as ritualistic as Japanese kabuki theater (28 minutes into the flick? OK, time for the obligatory repartee with Moneypenney!) and have been, even at their best, relentlessly bloodless enterprises in both senses of the word. Over a quarter of a decade ago, Steven Spielberg pitched Indiana Jones to George Lucas by describing everyone's favorite fighting archaeologist as "better than Bond"; the result was three films that were "must-see moviegoing" rather than the "it's-there-and-it's-the-latest-so-what-the-heck" that such mediocre, by-the-numbers efforts as The Man With the Golden Gun and Moonraker had relegated the 007 films to being. Indy was no superhero...he was vulnerable, and felt pain, and Casino Royale's genius is that its Bond is still learning, makes BIG mistakes, and actually bleeds. (And bleeds, and bleeds. Make no mistake, parents, this isn't a PG-13 film at all but a hard R. If you haven't seen the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, whose thesis is that the MPAA is far more lenient toward big studio efforts than small independent movies, this will convince you.) Eva Green is hands down THE best Bond girl of all time precisely because she's not a girl at all but a real woman... intelligent, multidimensional and able to give Bond as good as she gets, and I loved how this film, while remaining in the present day and being firmly rooted in the War on Terror rather than the Cold War, works as Bond's "origin story", explaining everything from his casual/ cruel attitude toward women (007 somehow qualifies as both the honorary president of the Playboy Club AND the He-Man Women-Haters Club) to his special fondness for Aston-Martins to even where the film series' famous "bloody iris" trademark comes from. (And the movie answers a few relevant fan questions, too. If you ever wondered whether Judi Dench's M has any kind of personal life, you'll find out...if you look closely.) Nearly everything works, including the risky Texas hold-em poker sequence that takes up a substantial part of the running time, but for many the most memorable sequence will be Bond's torture scene, which recalls memories of Goldfinger's legendary "laser bit" but turns up the intensity; if men in the earlier movie's audience crossed their legs in discomfort, they're likely to twist them like pretzels during THIS variant. Two more elements that place Casino Royale on the same rarified plateau as Goldfinger and its predecessor From Russia With Love is that all three are the only films in the entire Bond series that are viable Ten Best entries for their respective years, and all three of them, to refer to a very funny play that Casino Royale makes on one of 007's signature lines, are the Bond films virtually guaranteed to leave their audiences both shaken AND stirred. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JakeP.Jan 30, 2007
Very good, a bit more gadgetry could have been added, but overall a great addition to the Bond collection!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LoberG.Jan 3, 2007
It was a good film, but I did not like the actor who played James Bond.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RM.Feb 26, 2007
I've been a Bond fan since Goldfinger. I was disappointed by the confusing doublecrosses and plot twists, most of which were toward the end of the film. Who was blackmailing Vesper? Why did the Angolans want money from LeChiffre? He I've been a Bond fan since Goldfinger. I was disappointed by the confusing doublecrosses and plot twists, most of which were toward the end of the film. Who was blackmailing Vesper? Why did the Angolans want money from LeChiffre? He supposedly was paid for weapons but the film never explained the transaction. Who shot Mathis? Craig of course was good. I knew he would be. The pre-credits were so-so, the title sequence was cartoonish. The song was boring. The tone of the film was great, more serious. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MikeN.Mar 13, 2007
It's better than any recent Bond movie. But it still isn't great. It is, I suppose a "good" movie. But lets face it. James Bond is dead. And he's not coming back, unless they find another Sean Connery to play him. Daniel Craig It's better than any recent Bond movie. But it still isn't great. It is, I suppose a "good" movie. But lets face it. James Bond is dead. And he's not coming back, unless they find another Sean Connery to play him. Daniel Craig is good, but just not good enough. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JavierMar 21, 2007
I actually enjoyed Bronsan as Bond, especially in Goldeneye, but Die Another Day was "Batman and Robin" bad. This movie in my eye resurrects the franchise. While no one can top Connery's Bond, both dashing and brutal, Craig's I actually enjoyed Bronsan as Bond, especially in Goldeneye, but Die Another Day was "Batman and Robin" bad. This movie in my eye resurrects the franchise. While no one can top Connery's Bond, both dashing and brutal, Craig's interpretation recalls those qualities. People forget how ammoral Connery's Bond could be. Eva Green is riveting, rewatch her scenes with Bond and you will see how nuanced her performance is. The early action scene at the construction site is amazing, but the movie doesn't rely on overblown chase scenes to create tension. The movie is a tad too long, but at least the length allows Craig and Green to convey a real realtionship. I highly recommend this movie (Who ever said MI3 was better is nuts or is Tom Cruise - which may be the samething) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
NickA.Mar 23, 2007
This was a good film but not a great one! Perhaps I'm being a bit sentimental here but after watching this I wanted to get out one of my favourite bond films, Live And Let Die and see what the true point of Bond was, loads of gadgets, This was a good film but not a great one! Perhaps I'm being a bit sentimental here but after watching this I wanted to get out one of my favourite bond films, Live And Let Die and see what the true point of Bond was, loads of gadgets, loads of explosions and a film that didnt take itself so seriously. In a way this resembles the way Batman Begins goes in re-inventing the franchise, however that works brilliantly this somehow left me feeling a bit underwhelmed. As a film its not bad and there are some great action sequences however too much time was spent in the casino scenes and this part dragged on for too long. So it was a good attempt at trying to bring Bond upto date but not quite there. Daniel Craig really wasnt the problem here even though Judi Dench stole every scene they were in together! Perhaps with time the director will manage to get the right blend of gadgets, wry humour and action sequences whilst still being gritty and dark at times. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JimmyLoneWolfMar 24, 2007
I really can't believe some of the comments I'm reading on here...what stupidity! First off, this movie BLOWS Spy Game out of the water, to the idiot who said this was trying to be like that film by making us "feel" for a spy. I really can't believe some of the comments I'm reading on here...what stupidity! First off, this movie BLOWS Spy Game out of the water, to the idiot who said this was trying to be like that film by making us "feel" for a spy. Second, I get a HUGE kick out of the girl who claims this movie "seemed to be all about FX" when the movie that came out right before it was Die Another Day, the worst example of overblown special effects I've seen in years. Finally, a shout out to the guy who says Live and Let Die (with its "gadgets") is "what REAL Bond films are about," conveniently ignoring From Russia With Love and the other SUPERIOR Connery films that wisely held back on overusing the gimmicks. As for Casino Royale, it was exceptionally good, and truly rivals the Connery years. Daniel Craig is perfect in the role, the cinematography is stunningly good, the romance feels real for a change, and the action is as harsh and brutal as it has ever been. People who don't like this movie simply have no idea what constitutes a "classic" film. Instead, they'll take the clunky camerawork and cheesy, pun-laden "humor" of the Brosnan films simply because there's giant lasers and CGI involved. This film will prove to film lovers that the state of cinema is just fine, its the state of mainstream audiences' minds that we should REALLY worried about. This is the best Bond film in nearly 30 years, its just too bad noone watches movies from 30 years ago so they have no idea what a GOOD Bond film is like. Wake up people, this is the real deal. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
GavinB.Apr 1, 2007
Poor, very poor. Not only does this movie fail to live up to anything that has come from the excellent mind that belongs to Ian Fleming, but has destroyed the great legacy of that which is the bond series. Poor acting, poor plot, poor Bond. Poor, very poor. Not only does this movie fail to live up to anything that has come from the excellent mind that belongs to Ian Fleming, but has destroyed the great legacy of that which is the bond series. Poor acting, poor plot, poor Bond. Mr Fleming, we are sorry. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JamesB.Apr 2, 2007
This movie was absolutely perfect, I don't know why some guys gave it a "1" or a "3". The story is when Bond gets his 00 license and his license to kill. Since this is Fleming's first book on James Bond, there is no "Q" (he This movie was absolutely perfect, I don't know why some guys gave it a "1" or a "3". The story is when Bond gets his 00 license and his license to kill. Since this is Fleming's first book on James Bond, there is no "Q" (he didn't debue until from Russia with love). Because there is no "Q" no gadgets. This knew Bond may seem reckless at first, but hey, it's when he is young and most energetic of his time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
DeanB.Apr 8, 2007
If you want constant innuendo, one liners, and overall campness - go away and watch one of the Roger Moore, or Pierce Brosnan efforts. However I you prefer a more sophisticated Bond film, thats more serious, and artistic, and not full of If you want constant innuendo, one liners, and overall campness - go away and watch one of the Roger Moore, or Pierce Brosnan efforts. However I you prefer a more sophisticated Bond film, thats more serious, and artistic, and not full of gadgets, and over the top special effects (Pierce Brosnan - hang your head in shame), then 'Casino Royale' is for you. Daniel Craig's portrayal of 007, is similar to Timothy Dalton's. He attempts to play the character as intended by original author Ian Fleming (ie: a bit more serious, and with a darker edge, rather than cheesy one liners, and school boy innuendo!!), and personally i think he succeeds. The best (serious) Bond film, since 'Licence To Kill'. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CandyR.May 8, 2007
I must admit that I was one of those skeptical about the new Bond. I doubted I would even go and see it. However, I happened to be at a different movie when the previews came out and in seeing them I began to reconsider. Unfortunately I I must admit that I was one of those skeptical about the new Bond. I doubted I would even go and see it. However, I happened to be at a different movie when the previews came out and in seeing them I began to reconsider. Unfortunately I didn't get to see it in the theater (which is always the best way to watch a new movie), but rented it when it became available. Daniel Craig turned out to be the most breathtaking and enigmatic persona I've seen on the screen in a very long time! Imagine, Bond, a real person after all! For those who vastly enjoy the intellectual qualities of a film greater than the mindless and gratuitous sexual content with its childish repartees, this is the REAL McCOY!!! The dialogue is fresh, the action is riveting, and I've never seen anything so wonderful as Bond in a bathing suit! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JayL.Aug 21, 2007
This was the worst of the bond films. Poor action, no gadgets to speak of, and the characters was a poor attempt at best. Unsophisticated, bumbling bond. I was disappointed, and if this is what the Bond will be in the future, then I guess This was the worst of the bond films. Poor action, no gadgets to speak of, and the characters was a poor attempt at best. Unsophisticated, bumbling bond. I was disappointed, and if this is what the Bond will be in the future, then I guess the old statement is true. All good things must come to an end, because this bond would have been better off dying. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
NilsLOct 14, 2008
The perfect example of bad decisions in film-making. All the charm that made Bond Bond in the previous movies is gone, in a weak attempt to revive the franchise. A less-than perfect stab at realism, coupled with what made the old movies so The perfect example of bad decisions in film-making. All the charm that made Bond Bond in the previous movies is gone, in a weak attempt to revive the franchise. A less-than perfect stab at realism, coupled with what made the old movies so tacky yet endearing: the awful, unintelligent plot twists, unbelievable (and in this case completely unmemorable) villains, and laughable pseudo-psychology all amounts to a movie only the most undemanding will appreciate. That said, the opening sequence was entertaining. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BrianGJan 5, 2008
Perhaps the finest Bond film since Goldfinger. I have to agree that the Bond franchise was desperately in need of a "re-boot" given the ludicrous and wholly unsatisfying attempts of the recent films. Daniel Craig gives a superb performance, Perhaps the finest Bond film since Goldfinger. I have to agree that the Bond franchise was desperately in need of a "re-boot" given the ludicrous and wholly unsatisfying attempts of the recent films. Daniel Craig gives a superb performance, delivering intense, rugged sophistication. The scene on the train to Montenegro, in which Bond first meets Vesper and they quickly launch into their subtle verbal sparring provides fascinating insight into Bond Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
GerdemaFeb 15, 2008
Cunning, great acting performance from Daniel Craig.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TylerC.Feb 6, 2008
Best Bond movie yet? I don't even know if this is a Bond movie, but I loved it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
GaryDJul 14, 2008
True Brilliance! Really brought the franchise to realism and depth,with more intense 'Jason Bourne' like action, however the really did extend the storyline to long and the poker scene wasn't to great either,Nevertheless it is True Brilliance! Really brought the franchise to realism and depth,with more intense 'Jason Bourne' like action, however the really did extend the storyline to long and the poker scene wasn't to great either,Nevertheless it is a MUST SEE! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JimPFeb 8, 2009
Best Bond ever, best Bond film ever. Period.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
jojocaneteNov 16, 2006
its a poor mans james bond. the story doesn't jell together. after seeing all the bond movie. daniel craig is sour to the eyes, very hard to look at. please replace him immidiately. save the franchise before it go bankcrap. there areits a poor mans james bond. the story doesn't jell together. after seeing all the bond movie. daniel craig is sour to the eyes, very hard to look at. please replace him immidiately. save the franchise before it go bankcrap. there are lots of other qualified actors like clive owen. hugh hagman, russel crow, even the old sean connery with a tupay can do the job better Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JocelynE.Nov 16, 2006
The Bond persona needed a change in direction. Away from the character who started to resemble a superhero, and back to the secret agent who uses only his charm and quick wit to get out of tough situations, and into beautiful girls beds. The Bond persona needed a change in direction. Away from the character who started to resemble a superhero, and back to the secret agent who uses only his charm and quick wit to get out of tough situations, and into beautiful girls beds. Sure, Daniel Craig is a grittier Bond than we are used to seeing, but he still looks better in a tuxedo than any man should be allowed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MaxM.Nov 16, 2006
Anyone who doesn't appreciate (at least) that Bond is back and better than he has been in years is just grumpy. Despite being a tad long, this definitely whet my appetite for the next Craig outing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
amicusNov 17, 2006
Well-crafted movie. A realistic portrayal of a secret agent with the flamboyance and wit only James could deliver.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TimJ.Nov 17, 2006
I never thought there could be a bond like Sean Connery. I was wrong. Peirce B. came close. But Daniel Craig has gone beyond. You get to watch how events change the man and the man becomes Bond. And Daniel Craig IS Bond. I hope he makes a I never thought there could be a bond like Sean Connery. I was wrong. Peirce B. came close. But Daniel Craig has gone beyond. You get to watch how events change the man and the man becomes Bond. And Daniel Craig IS Bond. I hope he makes a dozen bond movies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KevinM.Nov 17, 2006
This movie was absolutely amazing. Without question, it was one of the best films of the 20th century, in my opinion. Between the elaborately drawn up plot, extremely humorous typical "Bond" humor, and of course, the absoutely phenomenal This movie was absolutely amazing. Without question, it was one of the best films of the 20th century, in my opinion. Between the elaborately drawn up plot, extremely humorous typical "Bond" humor, and of course, the absoutely phenomenal stunts & filmography, this movie tops the world's greatest, and also rivals GoldenEye for the greatest bond movie ever. Daniel Craig's acting is fantastic, and the frequent remarks and humorous quick comments keep viewers on the edge of their seat, if not standing up yelling. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MichaelH.Nov 18, 2006
I enjoyed the movie. Daniel Craig has potential, but it seemed to me they tried to read to much depth in too many disperate directions into the Bond character. Similarly Eva Green adds a lot, but again they made everything a little too I enjoyed the movie. Daniel Craig has potential, but it seemed to me they tried to read to much depth in too many disperate directions into the Bond character. Similarly Eva Green adds a lot, but again they made everything a little too tragic for my tastes. I remember before Die Another Day the movie PR folk tried to advertise it as a "psychological thriller" which it totally wasn't. This isn't either, but the producers and actors threw more bones at what a tough world it is to be a secret agent. Personally, I'd rather enjoy him as a quick-witted superhero (and not one of the conflicted, brooding Bruce Wayne/Batman ilk) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EricN.Nov 18, 2006
Long time Bond fan here. This one does not disappoint. It's a good bit different from the usual, but to me- that's a good thing. Very little cheese in this one. All the actors are incredible, great writing, great action scenes, Long time Bond fan here. This one does not disappoint. It's a good bit different from the usual, but to me- that's a good thing. Very little cheese in this one. All the actors are incredible, great writing, great action scenes, great adaption of the original book. The only two flaws I could find were: 1) A cheesy finger-licking scene. 2) It might have run a little long. This was ok for me as a Bond-geek, but my non-Bond-geek companions were getting a little worn out toward the end. Also, I haven't seen my local theater that packed in a long time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DWillyNov 18, 2006
Nifty dialog, great locations, nice set pieces, and a servicable lead performance from Craig, appropraitely thuggish but with the limitation that comes with an actor who is emotionally cut playing someone who is emotionally cut off. Never Nifty dialog, great locations, nice set pieces, and a servicable lead performance from Craig, appropraitely thuggish but with the limitation that comes with an actor who is emotionally cut playing someone who is emotionally cut off. Never moving (which is possible in a top flight, action film like The Bourne Identity), but always entertaining. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
WillW.Nov 18, 2006
The Bond team should be applauded for some excellent decisions - they know they're working with the best of the source material so they stick closely to it. The book isn't the most fast paced so they get Paul Haggis in to beef up The Bond team should be applauded for some excellent decisions - they know they're working with the best of the source material so they stick closely to it. The book isn't the most fast paced so they get Paul Haggis in to beef up the dialogue (and does it show). And they pick a fantastic Bond. Daniel Craig is closer to the Bond of the novels than arguably even Sean Connery, and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent. The only slight annoyance is Mads Mikkelson doesn't get enough screen time as Le Chiffre, although he more than makes up for it with the magnetic torture scene. Martin Campbell's saved the franchise again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BruceC.,CraneTexasNov 18, 2006
This is the Best Bond film ever to be put on screen! Daniel Craig did Excellent on playing the role Bond. I can't wait to see him again. Daniel Craig brought a new personality to Bond. Which I love how he did it. The main 3 reasons I This is the Best Bond film ever to be put on screen! Daniel Craig did Excellent on playing the role Bond. I can't wait to see him again. Daniel Craig brought a new personality to Bond. Which I love how he did it. The main 3 reasons I love this film. Is because there is no gadgets. no Q, or no Moneypenny. But most of all. I love the new Bond!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JBWockyNov 18, 2006
Sure, its a very good reboot but the film has two serious problems that trip up its shot at being the definitive Bond flick -for a Bond fan of course. First, Daniel Craig is good, puts in a superb effort and is wonderfully darker but is Sure, its a very good reboot but the film has two serious problems that trip up its shot at being the definitive Bond flick -for a Bond fan of course. First, Daniel Craig is good, puts in a superb effort and is wonderfully darker but is really not what the character merits. Tux him up to the hilt and he still looks and acts more KGB than MI6, more Spetsnaz than Oxbridge toff. The 'working man's Bond' is a problem, especially after Brosnan. Second, by stripping down and subverting every Bond trope - even if it be to pretty good effect too - the film melts the glue that always bonded. Bond is about as real world as Willy Wonka. The Bourne Identity the film can never be. Simply being different, with respect to an admittedly tired formula, makes a movie interesting and good, not great. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AnthonyS.Nov 20, 2006
This is the best Bond movie I've seen in 15 years, I'd have to say Daniel Craig really surprised me here. I was very skeptical about him playing the new bond, but boy was I ever mistaken! He flat out dominates every other actor This is the best Bond movie I've seen in 15 years, I'd have to say Daniel Craig really surprised me here. I was very skeptical about him playing the new bond, but boy was I ever mistaken! He flat out dominates every other actor back to Sean Connery. This film has given me a new hope for the future of Bond!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KennethK.Nov 21, 2006
Most satisfying movie experiece I've had in quite some time. Daniel Craig is the best Bond of all time. No question.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RedRoseNov 21, 2006
1) This is the best bond film of the last 20 years; 2) Daniel Craig is the best bond since Connery; 3) The pacing is absolutely perfect. 120 mins is just about right. Those reviewers complaining that 120 mins is too long either have ADD or I 1) This is the best bond film of the last 20 years; 2) Daniel Craig is the best bond since Connery; 3) The pacing is absolutely perfect. 120 mins is just about right. Those reviewers complaining that 120 mins is too long either have ADD or I suspect are very young/immature and do not have the patience to sit through this kind of film as they have most likely been force fed on a diet of Mission Impossible/XXX etc and are used to seeing films run no longer than 100 mins. 4) This is the best film of the year. Vastly superior to the overrated Departed. BRITAINS FAVOURITE SPY IS BACK. 10/10 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful