Casino Royale Reviews

[James]

Thanks to Skywalker and BJ for the kind comments and helping to assuage my fears that I've gone totally mad. I am completely bewildered by all this Casino Royale/Craig hype and hysteria.

[Connery007]

I was very disappointed by this movie as it was not a James Bond movie.

1- As I stated in other topics, the reboot crap. I just don't like the fact that I have to watch an whole movie on how James Bond was before. I already have a image of what James Bond is in the movies and by showing how he was before, kills the character. Example: Indiana Jones and the last crusade showed a glimpse of young Indiana Jones and his father within the movie. We see him as adventurous. It also showed why he never wants to lose his hat even in dangerous situations because his father gave it to him. It showed some goods characteristics of Indiana Jones without destroying the character.
2 - Vesper Lynd was a bitchy, unattractive woman. She and Bond had no chemistry. From her attitude, I already knew that she wasn't a woman to trust. I could already see that she would deceive Bond because she was bitchy from the start. I just don't understand how Bond can fall in love with this type of woman.
3 - Uncharismatic, no charm, no wit Bond. The line I hated the most in the movie. Bond to Vesper: "Look at my eyes. I can beat this man."
4 - Daniel Craig looked too muscle-bound.
5 - The poker scene - The casino was too clean, too quiet, not crowded enough. Where is the audience around the table to add that extra tension? It looked like it was played in some rich guy private mansion.
6 - Bond throw up, bleeds all over the place and has Vesper choose his clothing style.
The only positive thing I found in this movie is the beautiful exotics places.
I have to admit that the 999 car barrel rolls was awesome.

[paco chaos]

my review of Casino Royale.
after many weeks of avoiding this film upon it's release, I had one too many people tell me how great it was. and these were people who's opinions make sense to me. I had been extremely skeptical of Daniel Craig's casting, since I did enjoy Pierce Brosnan, and even enjoyed Die Another Day. I'm not saying Die Another Day was the best, or the most rewarding film in the series, I'm just stating that it was a good popcorn flick with eye candy galore.
But I had someone tell me that Casino Royale was the best film in the series, so I relented and went to see it.
When the opening sequence started, I got excited, the scenes where Bond gets his first 2 kills was excellent. but then the gun barrel closes, and the mediocrity begins. the title sequence had a theme song that seemed like it could have been so much more. Chris Cornell is a decent singer, but this song really needed a singer along the lines of Shirley Bassey, maybe a Jill Scott or Macy Gray, someone who can sound sexy and brassy at the same time. Plus, this is the only opening credits sequence without naked acrobatic women, and boy does it make a difference. blah.
then, the main story begins. a human kangaroo fights what is supposed to be James Bond on a crane in the middle of africa. Bond wears an ill fitting hawaiian shirt, and looks like Ron Howard on steroids. my interest is already waning. then Judi Dench shows up and ruins any continuity that this so-called prequel should have.
Bond gets paired up with the least sexy Bond Girl I've ever seen, and plays cards with some dull villian with a bleeding eye. after an overtly tedious card game, Bond almost dies from drinking a poisoned martini. apparently, Aston Martins are now equipped by Q branch with a convenient device to jump start a poisioned man's heart.
now this is my point about the movie, I've read Casino Royale, and I keep hearing how this is Ian Fleming's vision finally realized, but there was no scene with Bond being poisoned, nor was M a woman, and Bond had dark hair by Fleming's description. Vesper Lynd in the book was a gorgeous raven haired beauty, yet we get a racoon eyed, lanky awkward chick with zero sex appeal. Le Chiffe didn't have a bleeding eye, and was supposed to be heavy set. there was no crane sequence in the book. I don't mind things being updated to keep the story contemporary, and most of the other films don't stay that close to books either, but don't try and sell me this idea that this is closest to Ian Fleming's Bond. there was no sinking building, with Vesper locking herself in an elevator and drowning. sure this might be more exciting to some, but to me this sequence and the crane sequence are just as over the top as anything in Die Another Day.
as for Craig, he's a good actor, but he's not right for the part. he doesn't display the charm of Bond. Visually, he doesn't fit. sure he pumped up for the part, but that's only to make him more of an action man, since he needs to distract the audience from his obvious ill-fit for Bond. I want to give Craig a chance, but he doesn't seem to make an effort to be the character he is playing. To me Sean Connery is the best Bond, and part of what made him great was his obvious charm. I'm not saying Craig should imitate Connery, but he could take a page from his book. sure it's an improvement when you take the character more serious, but not to the point where you make the character unrecognizable.

[Skywalker]

my review of Casino Royale.
after many weeks of avoiding this film upon it's release, I had one too many people tell me how great it was. and these were people who's opinions make sense to me. I had been extremely skeptical of Daniel Craig's casting, since I did enjoy Pierce Brosnan, and even enjoyed Die Another Day. I'm not saying Die Another Day was the best, or the most rewarding film in the series, I'm just stating that it was a good popcorn flick with eye candy galore.
But I had someone tell me that Casino Royale was the best film in the series, so I relented and went to see it.
When the opening sequence started, I got excited, the scenes where Bond gets his first 2 kills was excellent. but then the gun barrel closes, and the mediocrity begins. the title sequence had a theme song that seemed like it could have been so much more. Chris Cornell is a decent singer, but this song really needed a singer along the lines of Shirley Bassey, maybe a Jill Scott or Macy Gray, someone who can sound sexy and brassy at the same time. Plus, this is the only opening credits sequence without naked acrobatic women, and boy does it make a difference. blah.
then, the main story begins. a human kangaroo fights what is supposed to be James Bond on a crane in the middle of africa. Bond wears an ill fitting hawaiian shirt, and looks like Ron Howard on steroids. my interest is already waning. then Judi Dench shows up and ruins any continuity that this so-called prequel should have.
Bond gets paired up with the least sexy Bond Girl I've ever seen, and plays cards with some dull villian with a bleeding eye. after an overtly tedious card game, Bond almost dies from drinking a poisoned martini. apparently, Aston Martins are now equipped by Q branch with a convenient device to jump start a poisioned man's heart.
now this is my point about the movie, I've read Casino Royale, and I keep hearing how this is Ian Fleming's vision finally realized, but there was no scene with Bond being poisoned, nor was M a woman, and Bond had dark hair by Fleming's description. Vesper Lynd in the book was a gorgeous raven haired beauty, yet we get a racoon eyed, lanky awkward chick with zero sex appeal. Le Chiffe didn't have a bleeding eye, and was supposed to be heavy set. there was no crane sequence in the book. I don't mind things being updated to keep the story contemporary, and most of the other films don't stay that close to books either, but don't try and sell me this idea that this is closest to Ian Fleming's Bond. there was no sinking building, with Vesper locking herself in an elevator and drowning. sure this might be more exciting to some, but to me this sequence and the crane sequence are just as over the top as anything in Die Another Day.
as for Craig, he's a good actor, but he's not right for the part. he doesn't display the charm of Bond. Visually, he doesn't fit. sure he pumped up for the part, but that's only to make him more of an action man, since he needs to distract the audience from his obvious ill-fit for Bond. I want to give Craig a chance, but he doesn't seem to make an effort to be the character he is playing. To me Sean Connery is the best Bond, and part of what made him great was his obvious charm. I'm not saying Craig should imitate Connery, but he could take a page from his book. sure it's an improvement when you take the character more serious, but not to the point where you make the character unrecognizable.

Another great review. It appears we all have similar issues with the film.

[Skywalker]

Indiana Jones and the last crusade showed a glimpse of young Indiana Jones and his father within the movie. We see him as adventurous. It also showed why he never wants to lose his hat even in dangerous situations because his father gave it to him. It showed some goods characteristics of Indiana Jones without destroying the character.

You've given a nice example in The last Crusade where a young Indiana demonstrates from a young age his desire for archeaology and his association with his hat (BTW it wasn't his Dad that gave it to him) and whip.

I actually liked the pre-007 idea. The problem for me is that Craig looked too old to be so thug like and yet his killing of Dryden was refined.

Why did he revert back to a thug for the majority of the film until the meeting with Mr White at the end?

[carl stromberg]

Bond wears an ill fitting hawaiian shirt, and looks like Ron Howard on steroids

[bjmdds]

Thanks to Skywalker and BJ for the kind comments and helping to assuage my fears that I've gone totally mad. I am completely bewildered by all this Casino Royale/Craig hype and hysteria.

As Jorel(Brando) says to his fellow Kryptonians, "I have been reasonable. This madness is your's!". I agree James, 100%, I just cannot explain Craig's acceptance as Bond.

[Connery007]

Indiana Jones and the last crusade showed a glimpse of young Indiana Jones and his father within the movie. We see him as adventurous. It also showed why he never wants to lose his hat even in dangerous situations because his father gave it to him. It showed some goods characteristics of Indiana Jones without destroying the character.

You've given a nice example in The last Crusade where a young Indiana demonstrates from a young age his desire for archeaology and his association with his hat (BTW it wasn't his Dad that gave it to him) and whip.

I actually liked the pre-007 idea. The problem for me is that Craig looked too old to be so thug like and yet his killing of Dryden was refined.

Why did he revert back to a thug for the majority of the film until the meeting with Mr White at the end?

Thanks for fixing my mistake me on the Indiana Jones hat. It's been a while that I haven't watch the movie. You're right. I think it was his father's archeologist friend. Then his father just give a little tap on the hat. Isn't it?

[Kristatos]

I actually think your review would be a good read Kris, as you've got a good view point. Were all bound to repeat ourselves and occassionally contradict ourselves as our opinions may change slightly, but I'm sure you'd get good feedback and it would be good for the forum to have more reviews from us members, as it means more to hear your opinion than that of some unkown person.

Well. OK then, but as I say, what follows is mostly a consolidation of my comments in earlier posts.

I went into Casino Royale with a lot of anticipation. The first new Bond film in 4 years and the launch of a new Bond to boot. I thought Pierce had one more film in him, but origin stories are in vogue at the moment, what with Batman Begins, Hannibal Rising and a new "Young Kirk and Spock" Star Trek movie in the works. The timing of EON’s recent acquisition of the rights to Casino Royale, the first novel in the series, was most serendipitous, and made the idea of doing it as an origin story almost inevitable. An origin story needs a new Bond, and so, much as I hate to see Pierce go, I can understand why it was time for him to hang up the tuxedo.

I was less happy with the choice of actor to replace him. When I saw the publicity shot of Daniel Craig as Bond, I thought he looked more suited to a Guy Ritchie gangster flick than a Bond film (I later found out that he was best known for Layer Cake, directed by Ritchie’s former producer, Matthew Vaughn). But I figured I shouldn’t judge him based on one photo, and that maybe once I saw him in action, it would be easier to think of him as Bond.

The pre-credit sequence boded well. The grainy flashback scene showed a tougher, more violent type of Bond film (not necessarily a bad thing), while the main action, in Dryden’s office, was more like Brosnan’s Bond in his more ruthless moments. I could actually imagine Brosnan doing that scene. However much pro-Craig revisionists try to convince us that Brosnan’s tenure in the role was all Roger Moore-style one-liners and invisible cars, I haven’t forgotten scenes such as his cold-blooded killing of Kaufman in TND.

I liked the main titles, too. The blocky animation was different to the traditional Maurice Binder style of credits, but it was still very Bondian, inspired by the cover of the first edition novel, which was designed by Fleming himself. The use of a hard rock song over the titles was a nice touch, signaling a kick-ass attitude from the new film.

Sadly, it went downhill from there. However hard I tried, I just couldn’t think of Craig as Bond. I have joked about his physical resemblance to Sid James, but I actually found it quite disconcerting when watching the film. And it soon became very clear that this was not an origin story, but the beginning of a whole new Bond franchise. The fact that Judi Dench returned as M, in violation of series continuity, and the omission of Q and Moneypenny were meant to signal a clean break with the past, but had the (possibly unintended, possibly not) effect of saying to long-term Bond fans like myself that “the previous films all sucked, and you were an idiot for enjoying them”.

So where does this leave the future? Craig apologists like to tell us that Bond 22 will finally show us, in the slightly strange words of the trailer, “how James became Bond”. I hope they’re right, though the fact that this was what Casino Royale promised us suggests that this may be a triumph of hope over experience. I’m not even convinced that Craig leaving the series will signal a return to a more traditional style of Bond. The fact that, according to another post on this forum, Barbara Broccoli lobbied hard for Sean Bean in Goldeneye, but was overruled by her late (and sorely missed) father, suggests that Bond will be cast as a blond bit of rough for as long as she is in charge of the franchise. Then, when she finally passes on the mantle to her successors, who knows? Maybe they will have a penchant for one-legged, Mexican Bonds. I think we have to accept that the Bond franchise as we know it ended with DAD. RIP, 007.

[Skywalker]

Indiana Jones and the last crusade showed a glimpse of young Indiana Jones and his father within the movie. We see him as adventurous. It also showed why he never wants to lose his hat even in dangerous situations because his father gave it to him. It showed some goods characteristics of Indiana Jones without destroying the character.

You've given a nice example in The last Crusade where a young Indiana demonstrates from a young age his desire for archeaology and his association with his hat (BTW it wasn't his Dad that gave it to him) and whip.

I actually liked the pre-007 idea. The problem for me is that Craig looked too old to be so thug like and yet his killing of Dryden was refined.

Why did he revert back to a thug for the majority of the film until the meeting with Mr White at the end?

Thanks for fixing my mistake me on the Indiana Jones hat. It's been a while that I haven't watch the movie. You're right. I think it was his father's archeologist friend. Then his father just give a little tap on the hat. Isn't it?

I believe the young Indiana was attempting yo restore an artifact to the National museum after a group of people had located it in a cave. Following a jovial pursuit, Indiana has to hand the item over and one of the group members places his hat on Indiana as a mark of respect.

[Skywalker]

I actually think your review would be a good read Kris, as you've got a good view point. Were all bound to repeat ourselves and occassionally contradict ourselves as our opinions may change slightly, but I'm sure you'd get good feedback and it would be good for the forum to have more reviews from us members, as it means more to hear your opinion than that of some unkown person.

Well. OK then, but as I say, what follows is mostly a consolidation of my comments in earlier posts.

I went into Casino Royale with a lot of anticipation. The first new Bond film in 4 years and the launch of a new Bond to boot. I thought Pierce had one more film in him, but origin stories are in vogue at the moment, what with Batman Begins, Hannibal Rising and a new "Young Kirk and Spock" Star Trek movie in the works. The timing of EON’s recent acquisition of the rights to Casino Royale, the first novel in the series, was most serendipitous, and made the idea of doing it as an origin story almost inevitable. An origin story needs a new Bond, and so, much as I hate to see Pierce go, I can understand why it was time for him to hang up the tuxedo.

I was less happy with the choice of actor to replace him. When I saw the publicity shot of Daniel Craig as Bond, I thought he looked more suited to a Guy Ritchie gangster flick than a Bond film (I later found out that he was best known for Layer Cake, directed by Ritchie’s former producer, Matthew Vaughn). But I figured I shouldn’t judge him based on one photo, and that maybe once I saw him in action, it would be easier to think of him as Bond.

The pre-credit sequence boded well. The grainy flashback scene showed a tougher, more violent type of Bond film (not necessarily a bad thing), while the main action, in Dryden’s office, was more like Brosnan’s Bond in his more ruthless moments. I could actually imagine Brosnan doing that scene. However much pro-Craig revisionists try to convince us that Brosnan’s tenure in the role was all Roger Moore-style one-liners and invisible cars, I haven’t forgotten scenes such as his cold-blooded killing of Kaufman in TND.

I liked the main titles, too. The blocky animation was different to the traditional Maurice Binder style of credits, but it was still very Bondian, inspired by the cover of the first edition novel, which was designed by Fleming himself. The use of a hard rock song over the titles was a nice touch, signaling a kick-ass attitude from the new film.

Sadly, it went downhill from there. However hard I tried, I just couldn’t think of Craig as Bond. I have joked about his physical resemblance to Sid James, but I actually found it quite disconcerting when watching the film. And it soon became very clear that this was not an origin story, but the beginning of a whole new Bond franchise. The fact that Judi Dench returned as M, in violation of series continuity, and the omission of Q and Moneypenny were meant to signal a clean break with the past, but had the (possibly unintended, possibly not) effect of saying to long-term Bond fans like myself that “the previous films all sucked, and you were an idiot for enjoying them”.

So where does this leave the future? Craig apologists like to tell us that Bond 22 will finally show us, in the slightly strange words of the trailer, “how James became Bond”. I hope they’re right, though the fact that this was what Casino Royale promised us suggests that this may be a triumph of hope over experience. I’m not even convinced that Craig leaving the series will signal a return to a more traditional style of Bond. The fact that, according to another post on this forum, Barbara Broccoli lobbied hard for Sean Bean in Goldeneye, but was overruled by her late (and sorely missed) father, suggests that Bond will be cast as a blond bit of rough for as long as she is in charge of the franchise. Then, when she finally passes on the mantle to her successors, who knows? Maybe they will have a penchant for one-legged, Mexican Bonds. I think we have to accept that the Bond franchise as we know it ended with DAD. RIP, 007.

I said your review would be good. I was wrong it was a great read. You pretty much nailed all the issues I have with the film.

The reference to Brosnan's kill of Dr Kaufman was an excellent example. You could add the Sean Bean scene too at the end of Goldeneye as a further example.

[adam]

Skywalker fair review. I still don't see Bond in Craig. How you hold out hope for him Ill never know.

Was your review watching it again after reading the book?

I have read the book and enjoyed it immensely.

I guess I based my review more on my interpretation of the cinematic Bond. When Bond kills Dryden, I feel that is Bond. I'm not talking about whether he looks the part or is tall enough etc etc... But the control, poise and cold heartedness was IMO Bond. That scene was classic Bond for me. Don't get me wrong I'd love to admit I enjoyed nothing from the film, but that is not true and I would not be fair in my assessment or criticism and if that is the case my opinion would be flawed.

As for holding out hope. Craig will be Bond for two more films unless Bond 22 dies a death at the cinema and the thought of me still stating Daniel Craig is not Bond in 3/4 years time would be futile IMO.

I'd like to think this site is constructive in its opinion to change/modify Bond 22/23 to be more akin to the Bond we love. I don't want to be in a position were I discount 3 of the movies in the franchise, just because I will not accept the actor (Sweeney are you reading. ). I do not particularly like Lazenby and thought his performance was inept due to his many flaws, yet I enjoy the film, so I do live in hope that Daniel Craig will deliver a classic Bond film that changes my current opinion.

You do not have to worry about the Sweeney, for he has discounted the ENTIRE past history of 20 films over 40 years since seeing his new hero, Craig, as Bond. Correct Sweeney, as you told me in the past? The review is insightful and totally points out the flaws in CR. Craig's overindulgent action sequences, which many did not like in DAD, seem to be accepted in CR. The opening black and white was soooooo wasted, as an inception scene, so short, and non-suspenseful, that one has to wonder what Campbell was thinking. To cram only 7 minutes of origin(?) content into a 2 hour and 20 minute film, is shocking. Craig DID deliver his lines well, but the segment was so short lived, that by the time the 2 kills were done, one in a toilet no less, we hear Cornell's raspy theme song. From the time the song is played, until the final scene of the film, this is NOT a Bond film as we have known it. You are correct. Dench should never have been in this film. Continuity has had it's issues in past Bond films, but this one has a time line problem with Dench as M. Yet, the film exploded at the box office in Europe, did identical numbers to DAD in the USA, and we will see what Eon has up their collective sleeves for 2008's creative agenda. I still believe that Bond must return to his roots of character in order to progress over the next decade. Maybe, just maybe, people tired of Bond as he was, and want this new Bond as he is. Not in my book, but we will see. A very good review Skywalker, Han Solo would be proud. Craig represents the Dark side of the Bond force, for now.

DAD had a good first hour or so. It got a bit ridiculous after that but was never anything less than entertaining. Brosnan's confident presence and good looks made it watchable and Bond fans generally think DAD is not bad. Move forward a long four years and we now have someone who has'nt got the qualities of any of the former Bonds. He has'nt even got his own unique qualities to bring to the role. There are only three big action scenes. None of these are original or impressive. Compare this to something like Octopussy which had six well staged and impressive action scenes. Is it true they are making a trilogy of films with a continuing story ? That is a REALLY bad idea.

[Dr. No]

I actually think your review would be a good read Kris, as you've got a good view point. Were all bound to repeat ourselves and occassionally contradict ourselves as our opinions may change slightly, but I'm sure you'd get good feedback and it would be good for the forum to have more reviews from us members, as it means more to hear your opinion than that of some unkown person.

Well. OK then, but as I say, what follows is mostly a consolidation of my comments in earlier posts.

I went into Casino Royale with a lot of anticipation. The first new Bond film in 4 years and the launch of a new Bond to boot. I thought Pierce had one more film in him, but origin stories are in vogue at the moment, what with Batman Begins, Hannibal Rising and a new "Young Kirk and Spock" Star Trek movie in the works. The timing of EON’s recent acquisition of the rights to Casino Royale, the first novel in the series, was most serendipitous, and made the idea of doing it as an origin story almost inevitable. An origin story needs a new Bond, and so, much as I hate to see Pierce go, I can understand why it was time for him to hang up the tuxedo.

I was less happy with the choice of actor to replace him. When I saw the publicity shot of Daniel Craig as Bond, I thought he looked more suited to a Guy Ritchie gangster flick than a Bond film (I later found out that he was best known for Layer Cake, directed by Ritchie’s former producer, Matthew Vaughn). But I figured I shouldn’t judge him based on one photo, and that maybe once I saw him in action, it would be easier to think of him as Bond.

The pre-credit sequence boded well. The grainy flashback scene showed a tougher, more violent type of Bond film (not necessarily a bad thing), while the main action, in Dryden’s office, was more like Brosnan’s Bond in his more ruthless moments. I could actually imagine Brosnan doing that scene. However much pro-Craig revisionists try to convince us that Brosnan’s tenure in the role was all Roger Moore-style one-liners and invisible cars, I haven’t forgotten scenes such as his cold-blooded killing of Kaufman in TND.

I liked the main titles, too. The blocky animation was different to the traditional Maurice Binder style of credits, but it was still very Bondian, inspired by the cover of the first edition novel, which was designed by Fleming himself. The use of a hard rock song over the titles was a nice touch, signaling a kick-ass attitude from the new film.

Sadly, it went downhill from there. However hard I tried, I just couldn’t think of Craig as Bond. I have joked about his physical resemblance to Sid James, but I actually found it quite disconcerting when watching the film. And it soon became very clear that this was not an origin story, but the beginning of a whole new Bond franchise. The fact that Judi Dench returned as M, in violation of series continuity, and the omission of Q and Moneypenny were meant to signal a clean break with the past, but had the (possibly unintended, possibly not) effect of saying to long-term Bond fans like myself that “the previous films all sucked, and you were an idiot for enjoying them”.

So where does this leave the future? Craig apologists like to tell us that Bond 22 will finally show us, in the slightly strange words of the trailer, “how James became Bond”. I hope they’re right, though the fact that this was what Casino Royale promised us suggests that this may be a triumph of hope over experience. I’m not even convinced that Craig leaving the series will signal a return to a more traditional style of Bond. The fact that, according to another post on this forum, Barbara Broccoli lobbied hard for Sean Bean in Goldeneye, but was overruled by her late (and sorely missed) father, suggests that Bond will be cast as a blond bit of rough for as long as she is in charge of the franchise. Then, when she finally passes on the mantle to her successors, who knows? Maybe they will have a penchant for one-legged, Mexican Bonds. I think we have to accept that the Bond franchise as we know it ended with DAD. RIP, 007.

I said your review would be good. I was wrong it was a great read. You pretty much nailed all the issues I have with the film.

The reference to Brosnan's kill of Dr Kaufman was an excellent example. You could add the Sean Bean scene too at the end of Goldeneye as a further example.

Killing Electra in TWINE had a cold edge to it. Same with the crazy (full monty guy with a bullet in his head) on the sub.

[Dr. No]

Skywalker fair review. I still don't see Bond in Craig. How you hold out hope for him Ill never know.

Was your review watching it again after reading the book?

I have read the book and enjoyed it immensely.

I guess I based my review more on my interpretation of the cinematic Bond. When Bond kills Dryden, I feel that is Bond. I'm not talking about whether he looks the part or is tall enough etc etc... But the control, poise and cold heartedness was IMO Bond. That scene was classic Bond for me. Don't get me wrong I'd love to admit I enjoyed nothing from the film, but that is not true and I would not be fair in my assessment or criticism and if that is the case my opinion would be flawed.

As for holding out hope. Craig will be Bond for two more films unless Bond 22 dies a death at the cinema and the thought of me still stating Daniel Craig is not Bond in 3/4 years time would be futile IMO.

I'd like to think this site is constructive in its opinion to change/modify Bond 22/23 to be more akin to the Bond we love. I don't want to be in a position were I discount 3 of the movies in the franchise, just because I will not accept the actor (Sweeney are you reading. ). I do not particularly like Lazenby and thought his performance was inept due to his many flaws, yet I enjoy the film, so I do live in hope that Daniel Craig will deliver a classic Bond film that changes my current opinion.

You do not have to worry about the Sweeney, for he has discounted the ENTIRE past history of 20 films over 40 years since seeing his new hero, Craig, as Bond. Correct Sweeney, as you told me in the past? The review is insightful and totally points out the flaws in CR. Craig's overindulgent action sequences, which many did not like in DAD, seem to be accepted in CR. The opening black and white was soooooo wasted, as an inception scene, so short, and non-suspenseful, that one has to wonder what Campbell was thinking. To cram only 7 minutes of origin(?) content into a 2 hour and 20 minute film, is shocking. Craig DID deliver his lines well, but the segment was so short lived, that by the time the 2 kills were done, one in a toilet no less, we hear Cornell's raspy theme song. From the time the song is played, until the final scene of the film, this is NOT a Bond film as we have known it. You are correct. Dench should never have been in this film. Continuity has had it's issues in past Bond films, but this one has a time line problem with Dench as M. Yet, the film exploded at the box office in Europe, did identical numbers to DAD in the USA, and we will see what Eon has up their collective sleeves for 2008's creative agenda. I still believe that Bond must return to his roots of character in order to progress over the next decade. Maybe, just maybe, people tired of Bond as he was, and want this new Bond as he is. Not in my book, but we will see. A very good review Skywalker, Han Solo would be proud. Craig represents the Dark side of the Bond force, for now.

DAD had a good first hour or so. It got a bit ridiculous after that but was never anything less than entertaining. Brosnan's confident presence and good looks made it watchable and Bond fans generally think DAD is not bad. Move forward a long four years and we now have someone who has'nt got the qualities of any of the former Bonds. He has'nt even got his own unique qualities to bring to the role. There are only three big action scenes. None of these are original or impressive. Compare this to something like Octopussy which had six well staged and impressive action scenes. Is it true they are making a trilogy of films with a continuing story ? That is a REALLY bad idea.

Brosnan's torture in the opening was one of his best.
I thought the outlandish points in DAD were because it was the 20th film. They packed as much as they possibly could in. The invisible car was praised for showing how far the movies have come.

we were looking forward to the promise of Brosnan's next and last outing.

[Kristatos]

The reference to Brosnan's kill of Dr Kaufman was an excellent example. You could add the Sean Bean scene too at the end of Goldeneye as a further example.

There were lots of things that I could have added, but I didn't want to make an already long review even longer. I barely touched on the movie's terrible casting, for example - not just Daniel Craig and Judi Dench, but also Mads Mikkelsen and Eva Green, though I did like Jeffrey Wright as Felix and Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis. I hope we'll see more of both in Bond 22 and 23. I'd like to see Bond's friendship with Felix (always a very underused character) develop to the point where you could believe that he would be best man at his wedding, as in LTK.

[The Sweeney]

You do not have to worry about the Sweeney, for he has discounted the ENTIRE past history of 20 films over 40 years since seeing his new hero, Craig, as Bond. Correct Sweeney, as you told me in the past? .

When I have said that.....

I only discount the Brosnan films from the series.

[Kristatos]

When I have said that.....

I only discount the Brosnan films from the series.

Well, that's bad enough. I mean, I'm not fond of the overly comedic direction in which Roger Moore took the Bond films, but I don't write off the entire Moore era. Even Moonraker had its moments.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

My Casino Royale review


It only seems like yesterday that Daniel Craig paddled down the Thames and was pushed out of his dinghy in a rubber-ring by Michael G Wilson. I was thrilled because Daniel Craig has always been my favourite actor. When I say favourite actor I'm not being entirely truthful. To be honest I had no idea who he was. But anyway he was the new James Bond. He seemed a bit short for the role and his fair hair and craggy features seemed better suited to a Robin Askwith biopic than tall, dark and handsome 007. For some reason he was wearing eyeliner and enough foundation to stock a small beauty saloon. But anyway he was James Bond. He looked a bit scrawny at the press conference but when shooting began he seemed to have packed two years worth of body-building into three months. He looks like he can kill or do some damage said his supporters. Why has he done all that body-building? said the sceptics. He looks like even more of a shortarse now. But anyway he was the new James Bond. As more footage from the film was released positions became more entrenched. I became more pessimistic with every new terrible photo of Daniel Craig and his one facial expression. On the plus side I was relieved to see someone had given the poor man some eyebrows. On the minus side he looked a bit like Roger De Courcey without Nookie the Bear. But anyway he was the new James Bond.



You could tell that old Bigmouth himself, the reliably unimaginative Martin Campbell was directing the new James Bond film. He managed to insult the other Bond actors before he'd finished. After proudly trumpeting the fact that Casino Royale would feature a 28-year-old Bond who has just earned his Double-O status he ended up with 53 year-old Daniel Craig as his young rookie Bond. The young Bond contenders were just too young he said later. Yes, 22 year-old Henry Cavill was too young to be James Bond. What a turn up for the books. Makes sense really with him only being, you know, 22. Perhaps they should have tested a few more actors who were old enough to shave.

Casino Royale is seventeen hours long. It begins with a B/W sequence and then moves into a title sequence involving a very small Daniel Craig and a theme tune that was rejected by Finland when David Arnold offered it to them as their Eurovision song contest entry. Then we have the free-running sequence which is too long and a bit silly. Yes, Pierce Brosnan is still roasted for his underwater tie-adjustments and radio controlled BMW but Daniel Craig running through walls and jumping off girders is somehow humane and realistic. Then he kills three-hundred soldiers and shoots the man he was chasing for reasons that escape me at the moment. The villain of Casino Royale is Le Chiffre played by the great Madge Nicholson. He wears a black suit and looks a bit oily. And that's it. Vesper is played by the French actress Eva Green. She doesn't have an awful lot to do in this film and her acting skills suggest that wasn't such a bad move.

After the chase we get a lot of product placement and cellphone nonsense. Cell phones received enough screen time to virtually be placed on the cast list. Craig plays cards and drives a Ford Mondeo. Judi Dench gives her 'just happy to be here' performance as M. The Airport sequence, which I feel like I've seen two hundred times in other movies, felt shoehorned in to give the film another set-piece and then we move into Montenegro and the second half of the film. It won't come as a huge suprise to know that I disliked the second half of the film too. Why? In no real order:

1) The Bond/Vesper train sparring was woeful.
2) The poker scenes were drab.
3) Clunky dialogue.
4) Drink wobbling.
5) Drink wobbling.
6) Drink wobbling.
7) Contrived ending.
Drink wobbling.

Daniel Craig in the lead role wanders around looking miserable and talks in a flat, monotone voice. He runs a lot and purses his lips. At no time did I think I was watching James Bond. His looks are laughably wrong for Bond and he lacks charisma, charm and a sense of mischief. I'd rather be locked in a room with a double-glazing salesman than watch Craig's Bond. James Bond is a joyless character in CR. Gone is the escapism and fun, replaced by laborious psychology and dreary production design.

I miss the panache, the wit, the charm of Bond.

[The Sweeney]

Your review is heavily biased, and its obvious you had an agenda to dislike the film before stepping foot into the cinema to watch it with your pre-release thoughts.

You also claim that Bond kills 300 soldiers, so I find it difficult to take your review that seriously. You also criticize product placement, something that has been part of Bond films for years (although you've kindly overlooked that). As for the Ford Mondeo, I have two words for you from FYEO - yellow Citroen.

The drink wobbling statement obviously means you have not read any of the original Fleming novels.

I understand you don't like the film, or the star, but this was not a very well constructed, fair or objective review, IMO.

[The Sweeney]

Here was my review when I first saw it, and my opinion hasn't really changed since....although I was perhaps getting a little carried away saying he was better than Connery at this stage. Bond 22 will determine this. And I also didn't find Eva irritating on first viewing (now I do).


Casino Royale - the greatest Bond film ever!

I've just seen it. What can I say. Speechless!!

Opening credits, superb! Very retro 60's.
Beginning action sequences, breathtaking, edge-of-your-seat stuff.
Eva Green is EXACTLY as imagined her to be in the novel. Arnold's music - John Barry lives again!! Le Chiffre, suitably slippery, and again, pretty much how I imagined him to be in the novel. I'm pretty much lost for words on the film. It took me by complete suprise. I was worried as I had high expectations anyway, but this actually surpassed it (never thought that would be possible). From the card game onwards unfolds pretty much like it does in the novel. It was great seeing moments from Fleming's work again, only this time how it should have been done all along. With REALISM!!! Out are the crappy one-liners, stupid jokes and silliness. In is hard-edged, bloody, brutal action and realistic dialogue - something that I have never witnessed before in the films, only in the novels.

And last but not least, Daniel Craig himself. How does he rate. In one word, BRILLIANT! He barges his way right the way through this movie, Maximus-Gladiator style. Relentless, ruthless, violent, vulnerable and believable. Again, he surpassed what I expected of him. If anyone had doubts about Craig before as Bond (including the CnB'ers) you needn't worry. This guy is actually BETTER (yes better) than the big man himself, Sean Connery......I never thought I would ever say that, but it is true. Craig makes every other Bond actor look weak in comparison, and we all know what a hard act they are to follow (especially Connery), but somehow Craig has pulled it off.

I am still in a state of absolute shock right now. After 20 years, I've finally seen Ian Fleming's James Bond on screen, in all his true, bloody glory.

Daniel, don't you dare walk away from this franchise now. EON, lock this man up and keep him from straying away. You have struck pure gold with this one!!!!!

10 out of 10.