The early Casino Royale reviews are now up… and whoever the morons were who started that whole “Craig Not Bond” website earlier this year are probably sticking their heads in the sand and hiding someplace. The Casino Royale review look, to put it mildly, amazing. I’m dying to see this tomorrow (missed my screening Monday).
Here are what some of the critics are saying in their Casino Royale reviews:
There’s one whopper of a reason why Casino Royale is the hippest, highest-octane Bond film in ages, and his name is Daniel Craig.
Peter Travers – Rolling StoneCasino Royale sees Bond himself recharged with fresh toughness and arrogance, along with balancing hints of sadism and humanity, just as the fabled series is reinvigorated by going back to basics.
Todd McCarthy – VarietyDaniel Craig is probably the best and most serious actor to have been cast as 007 and this film makes full use of his range.
Christopher Tookey – London Daily MailContrary to pre-release nay-sayers, Daniel Craig has done more with James Bond in one film than some previous stars have in multiple reprises. This is terrific stuff, again positioning 007 as the action franchise to beat.
Kim Newman – Empire Magazine
As of this moment, Casino Royale reviews are holding an amazing 95% at rottentomatoes. I’ll be giving my video review Saturday, so keep your eye open for it.
Will appreciate someone explaining a couple of elements in the Casino Royale movie. Le Chiffre picks up the money from the Ugandan terrorist and immediately phones his market agent. I think he tells him to “short” one million shares of stock, which I think is for the aircraft manufacturer that is releasing a newly designed passenger jet. Bond prevents the destruction of the plane. “M” speaks of money to be made or lost. I thought the “short” was a purchase of the stock. Had the plane been destroyed-the stock goes down. But the plane was protected and therefore the stock should continue to climb. So how did Le Chriffre get into the financial bind? At the end of the movie, after most of the main characters have died by different methods, Bond is shown with the mysterious “Mr. White” after Bond has fired several rounds apparently into his legs. I don’t understand this moment either. What about Bond’s poker winnings that Mr. White recovered from the water in Venice. Did Bond recover that for “M”? It appears that most of my questions are the result of my ignorance of market procedures and general misunderstanding of the movie plot.
If anyone reading these reviews to decide if they’ll like the movie…
Everyone here is a jackass,
including MYSELF.
Don’t let any of us tell you what to think about the movie.
See it for yourself and make up your own opinion.
It’s that easy!
Brett,
Can’t help thinking that like for Bond is more than as a film character!
“butt-hole” “gayest” “prettiest” “gay” “balls” “frikken balls”
I aint seen the film yet. However, Ive seen every frikken bond film known to mankind. So, I find it a litle disturbing that so many ‘critics; here, dont bother to watch or have never seen another frikken bond film and then critique it with all the charm of an un-wiped butthole.
If i was his sponsor, Id say ‘Get on the program, pal.’
Roger Moore was the prettiest, the gayest and the most moral of all the bonds. Connery was the youngest and less gay. Dalton was spazo. Brosnan was always a mis-cast; he doesnt have any balls.
Bond = balls of steel. so where are ya frikken balls, mon?!?
Interesting film.
Both my wife and I felt;
1. Daniel Craig’s got potential (I was pleasantly surprised at how good he was).
2. The film was too long, particularly the romantic scenes and the poker/gambling
3. Loved the subtlety of the gadgets ie didn’t miss Q
4. Storyline – What was all that about. haven’t got a clue what happened, and now I don’t care. Seemed over complicated for the sake of over complicating things. Almost felt like I was watching Mission Impossible 67.
5. In summary, if they gave it a proper end, lets face it Flemings dead, so he isn’t going to moan and reduced some film, took out the painful (for a bloke) bollock smashing scene (WTF !!!!), it could have been one of the best ever Bond films.
Cheers
PS – Can people stop this sh1t about DC being the best ever and being totally different to all the rest. He may be different to the Die Another Day Bond, but I’ve seen a lot of him in the Connery/Lazenby and Dalton Bonds!
Connery was brilliant – but watching the films now is painfully considering how dated some off the technology is
Moore – He was the comedian, but I did love the films when I was young
Lazenby – Good film, but only enjoyed it when I grew up
Dalton – He made the character real, but everyone hated him. Shame, I think he had a hard task to do, considering everyone wanted Pearce, and he’s films followed the Pink Panther inspired Moore era.
Pierce – Was brilliant for the 90s and did a fantastic job resurrecting Bond.
I hope DC builds on this, but I don’t know what’s more unbelievable, Bond or half the crap written above.
I’d like to start by saying that I’m a BOND fan. Not a fan of the actors that play him, nor the books and screenplays, or even the gadgets and gimmicks.
I love the character of Bond. When he was recently referred to as a misogynist dinosaur, I found the reason he appeals to me. He is an ideal that I like to lose myself in. I’m no woman-hater or anti-earthy, but don’t hide the fact that I’d like to live that fantasy.
Maybe that’s why I find that I can love all the Bond films in one way or another. I don’t restrict my appreciation by actor, writer, or premise. From the cheesy Moore Bond to the gritty Craig Bond, from the rough lady-killer Connery Bond to the metrosexual Brosnan Bond. All have characteristics that make up the whole.
While the books are the true Bond, he’s been elaborated upon. He has become a character that has so many facets that no one actor can portray them all. The latest Bond is the one that has the grit and fire to him. He’s rugged and ripped, yet can soften if need be. He’s the guy you want to take care of the dirty work, and in this film, he does…..in spades!
As the character has – LEARN TO EVOLVE IN YOUR APPRECIATION!
Just my $.02
Nytwolf
I say again: Read the book.
If you don’t like the story, read the book – that’s where it started.
If you don’t like Bond this way, you’re in for serious disappointment in the future. Everything I’ve read indicates that they’re going to remake all of the stories, by the book (updated, and as close to the novel as possible), and in the correct story (novel) order. You can see the proper sequence here: http://www.klast.net/bond/nov_flem.html
This film was meant to show how Bond got the promotion to 00 status. It was meant to be tough. It was meant to be harsh. He is a blunt instrument. That’s the point.
The whole suave, gentlemanly demeanor that was introduced with Connery was not the way character was designed. That was created by the director. Connery was a good choice for the role, because he fit the description in the book (Casino Royale). Sadly, however, while he could be tough, the director had a different view of the character, and Connery was never really put to his full potential. Nor were the films.
IanHunt- thanks for mentioning the surfing. The recent films have been peppered with more and more unlikely things (then there’s Moonraker – ugh). They needed to drop the trend toward implausible, nay idiotic story elements. Casino Royale may have been slightly over the top, but it didn’t have a super-laser, a private fleet of space shuttles, or a rocket that flies across Japan, swallowing other craft. It had a guy who was up to his eyeballs in debt, and had to either pay up, or die. Doesn’t sound that far-out, to me. Sounds pretty common in this day and age.
And again: If you don’t like way things are going, get some perspective – read the books. That’s where it all started. And you might find new appreciation for the onscreen material. You’ll also have an idea of what the characters are really like, and what they’re thinking, when the feces hit the flabellum.
Be Seeing You,
Q
Okay, I thought about it for a few minutes and read alot of reviews.
Why can’t people who like and hate this movie get along?
I think I understand what the problem is…
Those who like the movie, think it is a good MOVIE.
Those who don’t, don’t because they think it doesn’t make a good traditional BOND MOVIE.
See it both ways, those who were tired of the repitition and thought the series was dying, appreciated a new look.
Those who got so used to seeing Bond’s character developed through all those movies and expected to see an extension on what they really liked.
Lights Out- Sorry for saying you had bad grammar.
Maybe now I’m on Santa’s nice list.
What’s so superhuman about it? The guy he’s chasing is a French free-runner. They do all the time.
Oh and Brosnan’s windsurfing from a rocket car’s windshield after a super laser cuts off a peice of an ice cap sounds so realistic?
I’m not a craig fan, but I certainly don’t like brosnan. They should have given more movies to someone who deserved it: Timothy Dolton.
Terrible, and a great disappointment! Another hollywood action movie more reminiscent of a videogame than of reality. Short on character development and plot … a hodge-podge of disjoint action scenes interspersed with tinsel.
Unlike such Bond classics as From Russia With Love, Casino Royale ignores the dictum that a good novel/play/movie should captivate and involve the viewer through willing suspension of disbelief. The chase of the opening in Africa, over crane and rooftop, requires superhuman abilities. We are talking James Bond: not Superman.
All i can say is that i really enjoyed this movie.The last i watched was die another day and when coming out of the cinema i overheard people saying how bad the recent bond films had gotten.I had to agree.I never doubted craig as the new bond having seen layer cake and Casino Royale is a superb return to form.
Roll on the next one!
LanHunt, you sounded like a Daniel Graig fan. A true Bond fan would be very disappointed with this film. By the way, I might have bad grammar but at least I can tell the different between a good movie vs. a bad one.
Besides, brosnan is a very stale actor, he sounds like he’s trying too hard to push out the lines.
If you ask me, I wouldn’t take advice from people with terrible grammar.
This Bond movies is LAME!!! I wouldn’t recommend this movie to anybody but I believe it does worth a .99$ rental when it’s available for rental. This movie took a chapter out of Jackie Chan movie at the beginning and if I wanted to watch Poker, I would rather turn on ESPN instead. This movie have no plot, story lack big time and Daniel Craig looked more like a bad guy not Bond.
Daniel Craig cannot replace Brosnan. To me, it was a yet another movie and not a 007 movie. Worth watching only one.
Srinivasan
Bangalore,India.
Okay, to get rid of all the danielcraigisnotbond.com crap,
She says she is a bond fan, but only has a biography for brosnan and has a crap load of picture montages for him… but not connery, dolton, or moore.
She backs that she likes fleming, but none of brosnans movies were based off of fleming, just raymond benson and john gardner’s books.
Check it out: http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/literary/index_benson.php3
If you read her “hate mail” answer page, count how many times she calls the senders “daniel craig boy toys”. (needs a new vocab)
I really don’t think she hates Craig as bond, she is just a REALLY REALLY REALLY obsessed brosnan fanatic. Seriously, go to the site if you don’t believe me.
Oh and by the way, i didn’t like most of brosnans films (goldeneye wasn’t bad), not because Im a craig or connery or moore fanatic, but come on! Did you see the ridiculous air/wind/surfing thing in the begining and middle of die another day? Not to mention the Haley Barry stereotype lines “Yo mamma!” and Maddona (Title song singer) making a “cameo” as a 100 year old “sexy” fencing instructor.
Yeah, thats what i want to see, brosnan poking an adult diaper.
Reboot, in series fiction, means to discard all previous continuity in the series and start anew. Effectively, all previously-known history is declared by the writer to be null and void and the series starts over from the beginning. It is analogous to the process of rebooting a computer, clearing out all working memory and reloading the operating system from scratch; neglecting offline storage, none of the previous session’s activities have any bearing on the product of the current session, except in the memory of the operator (writer).
This differs from a creator producing a separate interpretation of another creator’s work; rather, the owner of the creation declares that the rebooted continuity is now the official version.
This term is often applied to comic books, where the prevailing continuity can be very important to the progress of future installments, acting (depending on circumstances and one’s point of view) as a rich foundation from which to develop characters and storylines, or as a box limiting the story options available to tell and an irreconcilable mess of contradictory history. Such large continuities also become a barrier to introducing newcomers to the fandom, as the complex histories are difficult to learn, and make understanding the story very difficult; [b]a reboot gives the chance for new fans to experience the story by reintroducing it in smaller and easier to understand installments.[/b]
Daniel is best Bond ever since Sean Connery eventhough I dont have blonde hair. It is not typical bond movie.He uses traditional bond line only once, that is in the end, when Mr White asks him who is it on his cell phone? and Bond then shots on his leg and says – “The Bond, James Bond!”.He tried to create new bond with nothing similiar to previous Bond, which is impressive. He is The Bond!Good movie but people should not expect gadgets. They should have some otherwise BOND will look like the Rocky Balboa soon in his future movies.
I thought the film was a good all action thriller but I was never truly convinced that it was a Bond film. One of the reasons for this was that the Bond theme was virtually omitted from the film. Big mistake. And the new Bond song was instantly forgettable.
Daniel Craig certainly did get bruised and battered. Unfortunately the bruises, knife wounds , oozing blood etc disappeared overnight, sometimes almost within an hour. Maybe the fake tan has a teflon coating. Or maybe he’s been laminated, you just wipe him down with a damp cloth.
The Bond girls were ok but it’s unlikely I could pick them out in a line-up.
The villain was ok, and I could certainly pick him out in a line-up.
I can’t believe that after the battering his privates took they couldn’t come up with an apt one liner when he was making love to Vesper.
I regret watching ‘The making of….’ Eliminated all the surprises.
Much as I like Daniel Craig I think Pierce Brosnan still had another Bond film in him. If he wanted more money they should have paid him.
By far one of the best Bond films in years. I particularly enjoyed the emphasis on how immature he was at the beginning. It shows how far the character has really come. The film also puts a whole other light on the entire catalogue of Bond films by giving some history. I thought Die Another Day was miserable and a very sad note for a great Bond like Brosnan to go out on. Actually the only other Bond film I hated more than Die Another Day was On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (couldn’t get into George’s performance). I like Craig. He did a great job. I don’t care if he has lime green hair and passionate pink eyes he was amazing. One of my all time fav’s. Saw it three times already. Great flick.
BTW, i forgot to mention… I loved the movie…
This is Ian Flemming’s first book. they always leave the “first” books in every sequel in case the people get bored… if there is a sequel… always expect a prequel…
The Prequel are always different from the rest… and most of the time it’s the best… So FAR my Favorite bond film :)
the bond has been the longest running franchise in the movie industry… and it has become boring and predictable… that’s why they decided to “REBOOT”, go back to the beginning of the story… that’s how movie business do it. and the producers felt the need.. in the movie, there were no gadgets and invisible cars (they became fantastical in “die another day” with the invisible car)…
they showed how the suave nonchalant bond got his license to kill… daniel craig was the RAW Bond… so raw, that bond chased this guy by foot… kewl! I liked it. it’s his transformation taht made me want to watch it…
i’ve been to see the new 007 film. the whole film was as far from a bond movie as could possible imagine the opening scence of how bond became bond was weak 2 kills and your a double ‘joke’. The gets going with a superb chase scene which was brilliant, then another action scene, where bond pursues a bomber in miami airport which has been done before.From there on the film slides into obscurity the bond girl hasn’t got looks to die for excuse the pun but thats the whole point of them. The casino scene’s take up to much of the movie and slows it down. Bond also recievs his car from a jiffy bag behind the casino’s reception at which point you relise that Q is cut from the film and also no gadgets. This was rather disapointing because that was what set bond apart from the rest of the spy films. Once the casino scenes have finished some which some scenes daniel craig is brilliant and comes alive as an actor but the two action scenes look like there where put there as an after thought. The film does get grittier which is good but the villian le chiffe is killed off by a stranger which totally flumaxed me. Then bond ends up in venice with vesper which leads to the one good action high octane drama we where promised, only to the most rubbish ending i have ever scene. bond shoots the mystery villian who shot le chiffe and stole the money in the leg and says “bond james bond” then the film end’s”. i can’t help but feel cheated but i’m hoping because it’s billed as bond in the beginning hopefully it will get better and less advertising it kills the whole thing there’s only so many range rovers and jags you can get on a screne.
.Daniel craig is a good bond but the plot is to be disired,i don’t want to go back to the vanishing cars rubbish again but something back to the goldfinger and goldeneye days.
craig is no sean connery and no body has ever proved so. however, he is ok for some of the future movies when bond fans opt for seriousness in presentation. connery’s definition of bond is immortal while others just linger seasonally. comparison is inevitable. even craig admits that he is inspired by connery’s way of acting bond. some of the missing bond elements should be added in the future films like gunbarrel opening, Money Penny, Q and the theme music. otherwise, bond will become just an imitator of Bruce Willis or Steve Mcquin or Jackie Chan movie lines.
Sure I can understand why there are some that say this was the best Bond in years or even the best bond ever. I mean if I had a heart rate of 2 beats per minute I would think the same thing. Hey not to get all those folks crazy but remember when On the Golden Pond came out? Remember the first time you sat through that and how riveting it was. That’s right you, feel it; that adrenaline rush. Or when you saw Mary Poppins for the first time, wow, that was nuts.
This film is a disgrace to the franchise!
Cheers to Daniel Craig however. I had my doubts about him but given some writers with imagination, creativity, heart beat, and experience beyond the 5th grade, I think he could pull it off.
One last thing:
Daniel Craig IS English – Born in Cheshire, England. The second English actor (R.M. was 1st) to play the role.
Even though Bond is half Scottish, half Swiss.
Hey Roger Wilco:
1- Read the book. He didn’t get a bunch of super-toys in the books – that was a movie thing. He gets practical armaments for the job at hand, and has to figure out the rest.
2- Bond DOES fall in love. (read the book)
3- Bond crashed his -PERSONAL- car in the first few miles of the car chase in the book. But you wouldn’t know that – you didn’t read it.
4- No, the intro wasn’t fantastic, but we’re dealing with a new version of the character – really new. (read the book)
5- Albert Broccoli is dead. And this isn’t an MGM film. This Sony’s baby, and Glidrose (the copyright holder – read the book) seems to think it was acceptable.
And if you can think of a Million other reasons to Not see a film, why do you bother going to the cinema? Oh yeah… You don’t read.
It seems that most people were expecting a continuation of the existing Bond storyline.
What’s happening is that they’ve run out of ideas. This is (believe it or not) a good thing – if they keep trashing the character, they’ll kill the franchise. They need a new take on the character.
So they’re starting over. GOOD!!
Having seen all the films and -more importantly- read all (ALL) of the books, it’s easy to see that the character has strayed from his origins. This updating of his first assignment as a 00-agent is a fine start. Unless you only care about the film version of the character…
The Motion-Picture Bond has become a softened and lessened version of the “Real” character.
James Bond is tough. He’s unemotional. He’s unattached. Okay, occasionally, he tries to give someone an option, but if you want a cold, calcuating, ruthless killer, it’s James Bond. Read ‘You Only Live Twice.” He F###ing STRANGLES Blofeld to death! Literally bare-handed.
Initially, I didn’t like Timothy Dalton as Bond, initially, but I went back and watched The Living Daylights again. Then I learned a few things about him: He read ALL of Ian Fleming’s Bond works, and Then watched all of his predecessors’ films, BEFORE shooting started (he even wanted the scar, but the producers wouldn’t let him). And having since been through the books again, I think he played Bond closer to the original designs than all of the others. And if you didn’t like Lazenby’s performance, Go READ THE BOOK, and you might change your mind.
— Incidentally, George Lazenby didn’t leave… Connery did. Lazenby was thrown to the wolves. The whole idea was for the company to say to
Connery “See…? You can be replaced at any time.” The intent being to goad him into coming back, and it worked. Lazenby was a judas goat. He was MEANT to only have one film – but they didn’t tell him that. The company screwed him over, because they wanted Connery, and Connery Didn’t want them.
I will say, also, that Moore’s 2 best films were penned by the team of Richard Maibaum and Michael Wilson: For Your Eyes Only, and Octopussy. They were solid, tight, and pretty close to to literary Bond. They were also each made from a combination of Ian Fleming short stories: FYEO = FYEO + Risico; Octopussy = Octopussy + Property of a Lady (with elements from a few other books).
I think Daniel Craig captured the essence of the character, as well. And this was the best place to start with a new actor.
This is the beginning. This is where we learn what got him the job. No, it doesn’t follow the book, Exactly. But if Le Chiffre was KGB, and the KGB is gone… Making it a “period-piece” would have been a mistake. They updated the story, fairly well, but still went back to the root of the character. It takes balls to BEAT A GUY TO DEATH. It takes cold disconnection to shoot a guy right in the middle of a conversation with him. And what about winning the car – >I’ll need the parking pass, too.It seems that most people were expecting a continuation of the existing Bond storyline.
What’s happening is that they’ve run out of ideas. This is (believe it or not) a good thing – if they keep trashing the character, they’ll kill the franchise. They need a new take on the character.
So they’re starting over. GOOD!!
Having seen all the films and -more importantly- read all (ALL) of the books, it’s easy to see that the character has strayed from his origins. This updating of his first assignment as a 00-agent is a fine start. Unless you only care about the film version of the character…
The Motion-Picture Bond has become a softened and lessened version of the “Real” character.
James Bond is tough. He’s unemotional. He’s unattached. Okay, occasionally, he tries to give someone an option, but if you want a cold, calcuating, ruthless killer, it’s James Bond. Read ‘You Only Live Twice.” He F###ing STRANGLES Blofeld to death! Literally bare-handed.
Initially, I didn’t like Timothy Dalton as Bond, initially, but I went back and watched The Living Daylights again. Then I learned a few things about him: He read ALL of Ian Fleming’s Bond works, and Then watched all of his predecessors’ films, BEFORE shooting started (he even wanted the scar, but the producers wouldn’t let him). And having since been through the books again, I think he played Bond closer to the original designs than all of the others. And if you didn’t like Lazenby’s performance, Go READ THE BOOK, and you might change your mind.
— Incidentally, George Lazenby didn’t leave… Connery did. Lazenby was thrown to the wolves. The whole idea was for the company to say to
Connery “See…? You can be replaced at any time.” The intent being to goad him into coming back, and it worked. Lazenby was a judas goat. He was MEANT to only have one film – but they didn’t tell him that. The company screwed him over, because they wanted Connery, and Connery Didn’t want them.
I will say, also, that Moore’s 2 best films were penned by the team of Richard Maibaum and Michael Wilson: For Your Eyes Only, and Octopussy. They were solid, tight, and pretty close to to literary Bond. They were also each made from a combination of Ian Fleming short stories: FYEO = FYEO + Risico; Octopussy = Octopussy + Property of a Lady (with elements from a few other books).
I think Daniel Craig captured the essence of the character, as well. And this was the best place to start with a new actor.
This is the beginning. This is where we learn what got him the job. No, it doesn’t follow the book, Exactly. But if Le Chiffre was KGB, and the KGB is gone… Making it a “period-piece” would have been a mistake. They updated the story, fairly well, but still went back to the root of the character. It takes balls to BEAT A GUY TO DEATH. It takes cold disconnection to shoot a guy right in the middle of a conversation with him. And what about winning the car – >I’ll need the parking pass, too.< And when he got information he wanted, he acted on it (champagne and caviar... for One). But he's also young (relatively), and lets himself get involved - which Bond does in the books, as well. Could it have been better? Sure. Was it bad? Definitely Not. If the stories I hear are correct, and that they're actually going to remake all of them - in proper story order (and closer to the books) - I truly look forward to the next several films. And you think this film was rough...? I can't wait to see how they handle what happens to Leiter... You can dislike it, if you want to, but you can't compare it to the past films. It's a different kind of monster. And it came out roaring. Oh yeah... While not the best equipment out there, Ericsson phones are fairly common. And if the British government uses VAIOs in the office, that's their choice. And they probably didn't pay for any of them...
Interesting – I haven’t seen the new film yet but I am still looking forward to it – I understand why the producer’s felt they needed a change, the films (particularly the last one) had gotten so intense with stunts, etc, there was no realistic way to top it – Kind of like what happened in the early 80’s after Moonraker had been a box office bonanza put the idea of doing somehing to top puting Bond in outer space seemed pretty ridiculous, hence we got For Your Eyes Only which had a more realistic cold war style spy thriller sense to it, still with plenty of action, one liners, Bond’s trademark charisma/style, but not as much outlandishness (no more Bond in space stuff). That film probably saved the franchise because continually trying to top Moonraker would have been impossible while maintining any semblance of believability.
For the record, I always liked Roger Moore as he was the Bond I grew up with, and I think The Spy Who Loved Me & For Your Eyes Only are among the best films in the series, more serious than his first two films and not as outlandish as Moonraker. Connery was terrific and yes, if it had been him and not George Lazenby On Her Majesty’s Secret Service might be better remembered. Poor Lazenby, he walked away from agold mine. I think Pierce Brosnan was an excellent Bond, combining the humor and style with believable toughness, the best of both Connery and Moore, hence a good choice to replace them. Timothy Dalton’s failure had more to do with his films and the producers decission to “water down” Bond’s character, more serious, less womanizing, and (particularly in his last film) a lack Bond-like villains – Remember, the best films have Bond pitted against absolute unredeemable mad men with plots endangering the world, not south american drug dealers who killed his friend’s wife- Dalton might have made a tremendous Bond if he had been given suitable material, he wasn’t, and he failed.
Replacing Brosnan will be tough and after 40 years the idea of showing Bond’s beginning, never really addessed in any previous film at length is a good idea. I’ll give the new guy two or three films before I am convinced, but so far the buzz has been good.
Hey Roger Wilco,
(question related to the “gadgets” and “Bond does not fall in love” comments)
Have you ever read the book Casino Royale?
Casino Royale was the biggest let down of 2006. I GIVE THIS MOVIE A 0.5/5….SERIOUSLY!!
-I am a huge Bond Fan…..not sure about the future though
No “Bond Gadgets” were shown
Too Much emphasis on the “Soap Opera” love life of Bond and an disappointingly non-attractive female….BOND DOES NOT FALL IN LOVE!
Bond Crashes his car the first 2 minutes into the traditional car chase
The Long anticipated intro was the weakest intro in Bond History.
Albert Broccoli has let me down to the extreme
A million other reasons to save your money and not see this joke of a 007. Daniel Craig is the only thing that made this movie watchable.
This film was way too long. I didn’t think I was going to watch Gone With The Wind. The romantic element was way overdone. I had the same problem with this film that I had with Miami Vice. The god darn middle just dragged and dragged. Still it was worth the money, though not excellent it good. 7/10
The new Bond is believable and the franchise is on the bag.
And the girl is absolutely gorgeous.
The movie dragged slightly in the casino scene (which incidentally capitalised on the current popularity of poker)
And the slightly confusing ending marred an overall 5/5 show.
I give it 4/5 for:
> great characterisation by all the cast
> great dialogue and repartee (Haggis rules)
> original action scenes
> successfully replacing Brosnan
I’m a LONG-TIME Bond fan. I was in 6th grade when From Russia with Love came out. My best friend saw it first, came home and described every minute. I finally got to see it a few days later. Like most of my generation, I’m a big fan of Sean Connery. But I think part of our liking him is that the plots were a bit more believable. I’ve disliked Roger Moore over the years simply because the movies were so silly. I like the polish of Pierce Brosnan but his movies were saddled with silliness, on occasion, such as an invisible car. I agree with the post that said On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was a good plot. Diana Rigg was a huge sex symbol (from The Avengers) when that came out. I was not disappointed with Craig and Casino Royale. I’ve looked forward to every Bond knowing that they would probably be silly. This is one of the first that wasn’t a huge letdown. My favorites are Thunderball and From Russia with Love but I was mostly fine with the Brosnan version. I agree this was long in parts but given my 40+ years of looking forward to Bond films, I’m optimistic that Craig can give us some good escape for a few years. The sold-out 500-seat theater I went to in the Washington, DC suburbs, on Friday night, gave it a huge positive response at the end. Even though I had big hopes (rather than expectations), I was still able to put it in perspective and just enjoy. Best evening in a theater in a long time.
I was very impressed with this.
Bond had to be updated to be brought into the 21st century and Daniel Craig did this perfectly.
Awesome.
I’m looking forward to the next movie.
What a boring movie. It just dragged and dragged. 20 minutes of watching people play poker. Another 15 of Bond falling in love like a teenager. Most reviews I read are about whether Daniel Craig makes a good bond. He is good in the movie but good casting and good acting cannot solve a bad plot. Constantly characters almost kill people they needed alive just to set up the few action scenes in the movie. It was basically 2 hours and 20 minutes of developing Bond’s new demeanor.
Just loved Mr. Craig and CR. For me it is one of the the best Bond movie so far (if not the best). Totally new Bond with much more wide personality, attitude, charisma. Great action scenes. Must see for everyone who is after Bond series or not. Its 8 out of 10 for me.
Now I will chime in.
Daniel Craig was fine. The in and out Brit accent didn’t bother me (Bond IS a spy, after all) and while I thought the film was really good overall, I also had a problem with the third act. I didn’t mind the little romance, but
***SPOILER AHEAD;;;;DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER;;;;****
When the villian is killed off, and you got the fling going on, noted since Bond has to make sure things are, uh, in working order…but still, there is the undercurrent that there’s more to the film. As much as it pains me to say this, the final action piece is not only anti-climatic, but it’s not as interesting or involving as the action and drama in/around the casino. The only thing you do get is that Bond really fell for her. (Shades of ‘Majesty’s Secret Service”)
Other than this, pretty good film overall. Worth full price.
I went to see this movie last night, and I was a little disappointed. Yes, it was actionpacked and all, but I think that the review boards are completely wrong in saying that Daniel Craig is the ‘best and most serious 007 actor yet’. My favorite is and always will be Pierce Brosnan. In this movie, he HARDLY had a british accent..if any at all. On top of that, he never really talked. He was always muttering words here and there, and mainly listening. I couldn’t get caught in the movie. I kept drifting. And I think it’s about time that whoever decided to keep going on the Bond movies, they need to stop switching up actors from brunette to blonde. It’s annoying. I’m used to a dark-haired bond, with dark eyes. Not blonde with ocean blue eyes. It’s creepy. I wasn’t feeling it at all.
SURPRISING BOND FILM
this Bond film surprise me because of things it show us to imagine Bond as a REALITY
for me Craig is a good all around actor and he suprisingly good as Bond. He can play Bond all around, HE MAKE BOND MORE HUMAN AND LESS SUPER HERO by making as see Bond in pain and coldness. Craig brought Bond in a new level of Humanity by showing Bonds insides past Bond actor portray less. Maybe Pierce portray a little but Craigs perfected it for a character who is a HERO and a MAN. What Craig is lacking is the so called “BOND MOVES” as we can see more in Pierce.
this is not the best Bond film for me but Craig should take credit for his Superb portrayal as Bond…
i can’t wait — definitely going to see it this weekend. I have been playing the online strategy game to get me ready for this day and I have enjoyed every sec of it!
Excited to see Craig in this — I think he will be spectatular.
Plus, Its easier to get a babysitter on monday night.
Cheaper too.
Oh Alfie,
Dont be mad. You know I luv ya.
As far as me noticing when you are negative goes, well… it happens quite a lot. It’s kinda hard not to notice. If I dont comment when you are being positive, it’s usually because I agree with you and what’s the point of just rehashing what you already said. I think that’s pretty boring actually. Disagreements create coversation, and I disagree with your use of the phrase “hugely disappointing” when you said it was a great Bond flick and you will be seeing it again tommorrow. I realize fully that you were trying to convey the difference in expectation and how you felt upon leaving the theatre, but if it turned out to be a great flick that you will be seeing again immedeatly it was in no way was “hugely disappointing”. Do you see what I’m saying when I say you seem to be negative for the sake of being negative?
And just so you know, yes, I read your entire post. I always read all of the posts, but you have to realize how “hegely disappointing” negatively tints the rest of your post no matter what you say afterwards. It’s kind of like being at a third grader’s school play where one of the kids gets shot by a parent at the beginning and then expecting the audience to enjoy the rest of the play. No matter how good that play is… you see where I’m going?
P.S. – I think every Roger Moore Bond film was better than the last 3 Brosnan Bond films. Goldeneye was the only good Bond film Brosnan made. I’m sorry if that upsets you but it’s my opinion. Actually Roger Moore is my favorite Bond too, as he is the first one I saw. For Your Eyes Only is my favorite Bond film. I havent seen Casino Royale yet so I cant say where it fits yet. I’ll go see it monday night because I despise crowds at the theatre. It ruins my experience.
Craignotbond has been moved to http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com. It’s actually hilarious how small minded these people are; they’ve taken the three or four negative reviews and started shouting about how they were right all along. There were reports they were considering sabotaging the press screenings last week but obviously nothing came of it…
Anyway, I saw the movie last night and loved it. It’s not just a great Bond flick, but a great film in its own right. The plot structure and pacing is a little messy but the same was true of the novel, which they’ve stuck to remarkably closely. The dialogue is worthy of a mention too – it’s excellent – and yes, Craig does an amazing job.
Just an FYI… I just tried to go to “CraignotBond.com” and it says that the site is “Temporarily Disabled”. Check. Mate.
i tried to explain myself more clearly there jay if you had read my posts…i got distracted by something as i wrote my first post and I actually deleted a sentence which conveyed what I meant……i was trying to say that my initial responce was of disappointment…..i walked out feeling let down…really let down…but as time went by i coudl’nt stop thinking about it and realised that nothing coudl have lived up to the expectations i had in my head……
it was only after thinking abouyt the film that I realised it was actually a great bond film….especially when compared to thelast couple of brosnan ones
the only thing I am truly negative about jay is you know what…
you only seem to notice when I am negative…..
Well a 7 or a 8 sounds just about right for this film. I am definitely gonna see it. I never expected greatness because the director is a HACK, but it should be great fun.
“Hugely disappointing”
Yet it’s a great bond film and you will see it again tommorrow.
You should probably think about your word usage a little more, Alfie.
Maybe “Somewhat Disappointing” or “A Little Disappointing” would have been better suited to what you actually thought of the film. I know that it’s your life’s goal to be negative in some way concerning just about everything but “hugely disappointing” does not accurately convey what you thought.
Overhyped but still a very good addition to the Bond franchise would have been another way to go. You see how it puts your message forward but doesnt give it the negative sting that “hugely disappointing” does.
spazmo….I liked this film….
you know when you are so built up for something then you finally get to see it and you can’t help but feel a little let down…and it isn’t the films fault iyt is totally due to your own expectations…thats what I initially felt when the film finished……
now having sat on it for awhile..it gets better and better the more I think about it….
I do however firmly believe these reviews claiming it is the best bond ever etc etc are wrong….they are swept up in the fact that it is definitely the best modern bond film since goldeneye….
you still have along way to go to beat goldfinger or from russia with love.
for me though….aside from lazenbys acting I personally think On His Majestys Secret service is the best bond story on film. if connery had stuck it out for that one it would probably be the greatest bond film ever but that honour still falls on either goldfinger or from russia with love.
For your eyes only is another good one and a bit underrated as it falls in the middle of moores run and as much as I love roger moore..he is my favorite bond as he is the first one I ever saw….the films do range from actually really good (for your eyes only, the man with the golden gun) to gloriously ludicrous(moonraker) to borderline racist(octopussy)….so I think people forget that for your eyes only was (for the time) a good down to earth gritty bond film…the dalton films are underrated too…I think the films “failing” was more due to the times then the films….it was time for bond to go away for a while….the films were fine the audiences were just not interested….
Casino Royale is a good bond film. In fact as I write this and think about the film it is more and more becoming a great bond film.
I just think the press are getting a bit carried away due to the fact that the film is so good and they were all expecting it not to be so their surprise is making them go a bit overboard in their praise as the press often do.
My only warning is don’t go in with “best bond of all time” expectations or you might feel a little deflated at films end.
See I love bond films…I fucking love them so I was a little over hyped.
It is a good film and I am seeing it again tomorrow….now with my expectations in check my love/like of the film will probably only grow
I was skeptical of Craig as Bond…didn’t seem to have the looks can kill bond look that I’ve come to associate with the character. Craig is a great actor, loved him in every movie I’ve seen him in, but I’ve never imagined him as a Bond.
But the film trailers do look cool, and the reviews overall seem very positive so I am looking forward to seein this film. Will not get to overly excited, so hopefully it will exceed my expectations.
I still love Conner and Brosnan as my two favorite bonds. I think the grittiness and reality based feel that this movie has could have pulled off by both those actors. But I must admit I am curious to see Craig in the role.
Alfie just wishes Bond had’ve ‘transformed’ into something… ;-)
I know it might sound contradictory at the start there…by saying hugely disappointing…just read my post and though I should clear it….I meant my first reaction was disappointment…I was way too hyped for this film…it is after letting it sit for a while i realised my expectations were too high…not the films fault.
again it is a great bond film…but if you are going with your expectations as high as the reviews are saying you might want to lower them or you might feel disappointed….
Just saw it. Don’t know what to say other than I thought it was hugely disappointing. The great reviews and all the positive buzz mighyt be raising peoples expectations a bit much. It is a good film…a very good bond film but it is certainly not the bext bond film nor can anyone claim craig as the best bond. Not yet anyway..lets give him another film before the hyperbole gets thrown around too freely. He is definitely the best all round actor to have played bond and in time I have no doubt he will be up there but it is hard to beat connery. especially on the first film.
I don’t want to give any spoilers but it is a very good bond film….much better than die another day. The gritty realistic approach works and it is something bond had to do in this “bourne” age….the film is great but I think some of these reviews are going a wee bit overboard.
Saw it last night, great movie. Here are my thoughts: Some little spoilers ahead.
This is the very first Bond I’ve ever seen in my life. Weird right? So what made me want to start watching now? I saw the Casino Royale trailer and it caught my interest. Craig looked like a Bond who could kick major ass, the action looked good and the women looked good. What more could a guy ask for in a movie? Anyway tonight I got to see Casino Royale. And let me say I was very impressed. The action in some scenes was outstanding. Espcailly within the first 40mins. The feeling I got from this movie was Bond was being approached at a more realistic and gritter way. There were no super gadgets just hard hitting blows. Craig plays the character really cold. He is unstable and is driven by ego. As the movie progressed he became more and more wiser. You can tell in some scenes Bond is paining on the inside. For the people who dislikes Craig as Bond must be crazy!!! Craig does an amazing job and shows all kinds sides to Bond. We see the egotistical, cold side, the funny witty side and Bonds deserve to lead a normal life.
There’s not too much to complain about. I felt the movie could have been way shorter, sometimes it felt some scenes were dragging out such as Vesper and Bonds romantic scenes. The last 20mins I was left a bit confused, I also felt the ending fell flat for me. A lot of questions are unanswered for now.
Overall and great introduction for me into the Bond franchise. I hope Craig keeps playing Bond and we see a great follow up to Casino Royale. I give Casino Royale 7/10
Ryan, I must say I’m a bit jealous that you’re seeing it at midnight tonight.
I already have my tickets for the tomorrow night show. I’m super pumped for this film. WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!
I wonder what the CraigNotBond fans are doing this weekend? :o)
Seeing it tonight at midnight. I hope it lives up to my expectations now – after all of these positive reviews, I’m hoping to see something pretty spectacular. Maybe like “the second best Bond movie.” Or at least “the cool new dark Bond film.”
I could have only predicted. I am very excited for this film