Casino Royale Reviews

[Skywalker]

Casino Royale by Skywalker.

This is my first review of the film. As most of you know I tend to post tongue in cheek on most of the threads on this great forum, but I will place my serious cap on for this.

When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, I like many others were surprised at his appointment. Craig was introduced to us via the Thames River on a speedboat. He appeared wearing shades and lifejacket (Oh dear) and commented that he was scared sh*tless by the boat journey. Not a great start, I thought to myself. The press had a field day and many tabloid papers commented on the arrival blunder. Despite this I felt Craig could deliver something different to the role. DAD had been a bit of a disaster (Not in terms of admissions) and had left an ugly stain on the franchise. I was willing to give Craig a chance and looked forward to his first outing.

I remember leaving the movie theatre with an extreme sense of frustration. After so many great reviews and positive feedback, how could this be? Perhaps my own expectations were too high? The film in my opinion tried too hard to be different, and the end result was a totally different Bond film, more akin to the Bourne series of films.

Back to the film itself and the start had me watching in awe. The film opens up with a nicely shot black and white PTS, which I feel is a joy to watch. The inclusion of this scene is to show Bond’s initiation into the OO club. Two kills are required for Bond to attain his licence to kill status. The virgin Bond is shown violently despatching an informant for Dryden (A rogue OO Agent) that demonstrates Craig’s physical presence (I wonder if the initial criticism had led to this style of Bond character) and the tone for which Craig’s Bond would continue. This scene culminates in Bond killing Dryden and delivering a nice one-liner.

The next scene containing Craig was the free running (parkour) scene. From this point on the film went downhill. For me this whole scene epitomised the desire for Hollywood (Jerry Bruckheimer) action, with no real point or benefit to the film. Many people enjoyed it, but I just felt this did not belong in a Bond movie. Why did Bond climb into the demolition vehicle just to drive it into a wall? This is supposed to be a top class operative, not a Rambo wannabee.

The free running itself was like an episode of Extreme sports, another pointless part of the movie. Why did the villain decide to climb up the crane when surely a hiding place or the nearest car would have been better option? This whole scene makes me cringe and the site of Craig running through walls is a joke.

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, something that was evidently missing in the Brosnan years, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood action.

The poker scenes were steady at best. I actually felt is was very drawn out and failed to deliver the required tension that surely should have been evident.

The inclusion of Dame Judi Dench was an extremely poor decision by EON to include her as M. As we all know, the Dame has played M throughout the Brosnan era and was introduced as the replacement M in Goldeneye with Brosnan playing the seasoned Bond. In Casino Royale it was a case of role reversal. Dame Judi was playing an experienced M with an ageing Rookie Bond in Craig. Are we supposed to accept Dame Judi is a different M to the one she has previously played? Don’t get me wrong I like The Dame and consider her to be a fine actress and a good M, but this role should have been given to someone else.

All in all I feel Daniel Craig could be an excellent Bond if directed correctly. When smooth and refined like at the start and end he showed glimpses of the cinematic Bond that I am accustomed too, but this just wasn’t enough to persuade me he is Bond as there were too many instances in the film where he looked too brash. This style of film could have perhapsed worked with a younger looking actor, not someone who clearly looks his age.

For me Casino Royale was a gamble that did not pay dividends.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

Good review SW!

[Skywalker]

8) Good review SW!

Thank Harvey. It would be nice if I had as many replies as I've had views.

[The Sweeney]

Good review Skywalker, and I actually agree with many of your points.

What is refreshing about your viewpoint is that you are actually willing to give Craig a chance, so already your opinions are not coming across too blinkered, narrow minded, etc.

I hope Bond 22 delivers more what you were expecting with CR....

[Skywalker]

Good review Skywalker, and I actually agree with many of your points.

What is refreshing about your viewpoint is that you are actually willing to give Craig a chance, so already your opinions are not coming across too blinkered, narrow minded, etc.

I hope Bond 22 delivers more what you were expecting with CR....

Many thanks Sweeney.

[Kristatos]

I hope Bond 22 delivers more what you were expecting with CR....

I hope so, too. Despite my misgivings about Craig, I still hope that Bond 22 will be an improvement on CR.

[ID]

...but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero

That's my major problem with the new Bond. He just doesn't seem very Bondish, especially when running through walls or shooting people in an old tattered shirt. Or sitting in a casino...

[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?

[Skywalker]

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.

[Kristatos]

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.

Hear hear.

[James]

I might put my own review up when I get time. Like skywalker I'll try to be fair. I agree with much of this post I found surfing today, although not the period piece part.


As a Bond film, even a so-called prequel, I don't think I cared for it that much. Bond was much more that just machismo, testosterone, and blunt force. I think the point was that he wasn't realistic but instead a manifestation of every guy's dream - to be cool, handsome, rich, and deadly. Craig's Bond is deadly but little else. Been a Bond fan for nearly 15 years and I don't think I ever imagined James Bond as an emotionally vulnerable hot head, even when he was a rookie agent.

Again, I really wish they would have had some guts and made this a true prequel to the Bond series and made this a period film, set in the swanky and uber-cool cold-war 1950's. Casino Royale is, in reality, no prequel at all but a first installment in a whole new franchise, one that I suspect won't have anywhere close to the durability and longevity of the first 21 films.

[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.

Futile or not, I am not going to knuckle under. Not in 10 years. If by some (highly unlikely) miracle DC does successfully portray the Bond we know, I will admit it. If I enjoy Bond 22 or 23, even if I still don't think he is Bond, Ill admit it.


My short experience with Bond books, including CR now, I didn't see Bond as Fleming wrote him (in cr). There is a different sort of humor, an odd mix everyday guy (bloke), serious professional, and a man very fond of his friends. Who all happen to be professional acquaintances. Like mathis and felix and Bill (whatshisname at HQ)

I don't hold to dissing DC just because of how wrong he looks, I judged him on the movie, which was one of the worst. I found him living up to the harsh criticism he got.
But if they would have rebooted like I was talking about with Sam Worthington, not trying so hard to be different I may have liked him.
Who knows maybe Bond 22 will get the mix right, doubtful since CR was so highly acclaimed, I think they stick as close to CR as they can.

[carl stromberg]

DAD had been a bit of a disaster (Not in terms of admissions) and had left an ugly stain on the franchise.

I find this fashionable view of Die Another Day that everyone has now quite puzzling!

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, something that was evidently missing in the Brosnan years, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood action.

They took the things that made Bond different from other action films out, therefore making Casino Royale seem like a run of the mill action scene. Daniel Craig lacks the spark to be successful as action hero, in my opinion.

This style of film could have perhapsed worked with a younger looking actor, not someone who clearly looks his age.

One of my major complaints with the film. I agree with that sensible co-founder of CommanderBond.net who boycotted Casino Royale because of this...

All in all I feel Daniel Craig could be an excellent Bond if directed correctly.

Your tolerance and open-mindedness are admirable; but I feel that Craig has too many flaws to be a viable bond (for me). Maybe I will get used to Craig as Bond after his fifth film...

[Skywalker]

Futile or not, I am not going to knuckle under. Not in 10 years. If by some (highly unlikely) miracle DC does successfully portray the Bond we know, I will admit it. If I enjoy Bond 22 or 23, even if I still don't think he is Bond, Ill admit it.

If the Bond character in Bond 22 is more like the one Pre CR then, I feel we can be happier.

You have to live in hope DR.

I don't hold to dissing DC just because of how wrong he looks, I judged him on the movie, which was one of the worst. I found him living up to the harsh criticism he got.
But if they would have rebooted like I was talking about with Sam Worthington, not trying so hard to be different I may have liked him

Agreed.

[Skywalker]

DAD had been a bit of a disaster (Not in terms of admissions) and had left an ugly stain on the franchise.

I find this fashionable view of Die Another Day that everyone has now quite puzzling!.

The first half of the film is good. Brosnan's performance is arguably his finest and yet the second half of the film is utter cr*p. I don't blame Brosnan for DAD and feel he deserved better material to work with.

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, something that was evidently missing in the Brosnan years, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood action.

They took the things that made Bond different from other action films out, therefore making Casino Royale seem like a run of the mill action scene. Daniel Craig lacks the spark to be successful as action hero, in my opinion.

A very good point Carl, he does not quite have the hollywood appeal and I would bet, without the power of the Bond franchise, an action film of his own making would have been poorly received.

[bjmdds]

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.

[Skywalker]

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.

Well put BJ.

Let's wait for Nash and Co to submit their reviews.

[James]

I thought I'd try and put down my reaction to Casino Royale:


After faffing about for a couple of years with no sense of direction and craftily allowing Pierce Brosnan to enter his fifties so he would be easier to sack Eon announced the next Bond film would be Casino Royale. I was excited because as any Bond fan knows Casino Royale is the last piece in the jigsaw so to speak, the Fleming book that started it all and slipped through their grasp. Soon after this was announced word filtered out that this was a Bond Begins or prequel or Bond reset or whatever the f**k you want to call it. Batman Begins and Jason Bourne seemed to have a big influence on this but then Bond did invent the modern action film and has pilfered from other fads and trends over the decades. Anyway, a young James Bond actor was promised. He would be 28 according to Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell and we would see how Bond became, er, Bond.

Roll on to november 2006 and I sit in my local cinema and watch Casino Royale. I leave the cinema in no doubt whatsoever that it is my least favourite film in the series. I'm not sure I ever want to watch it again and this coming from someone who owns all the previous films and has seen each one about 500 million times. In the lead role Daniel Craig has all the charm and panache of a can of tuna. He's a very good actor and there is nothing that wrong with his performance but he just doesn't fit this role. The qualities he brings to the part include: teeth-clenching, staring off into space, lip wobbling, grunting, stoic facial expressions, snapping out often leaden dialogue and looking serious. He ruined the torture scene with his overwrought theatrics and failed to make me laugh once. Connery, Moore and Brosnan knew their way around a one-liner and could all make me laugh with a facial expression. The latest Bond is sorely lacking in this dept and IMO humour is an important part of Bond,. I don't mean cheesy OTT humour but stuff like "Do you mind if my friend sits this one out? She's just dead." There is nothing like that in CR. No corking Bond moment that you remember. The PTS was very short and ruined by the trailer. I hate the theme and Craig surely lacks the Milk-Tray man looks for the close-ups he recieves in the title sequence. I hated Judi Dench being back. I thought Le Chiffre and Vesper were unmemorable. The card-game was average. The construction chase was ludicrous and undermined the tone of the rest of the film. They cut silly set-pieces out of The Living Daylights here they put them in. As the film dragged on I found myself not caring about Vesper or the continuation revenge storyline that promises to surface in the next film. Worst of all I didn't care about 'Bond', who was a surly, charmless sociopath and not an especially charismatic or interesting person to spend a couple of hours with.

On the plus side the film had flashes of colour and exoticism. I did like Jeffrey Wright as Felix. He made the most of his small role. The film was certainly brave and striving for something, and while I admit it was time sooner or later to try something new I didn't care for the final result and, crucially, the actor they picked.

How did Bond become Bond? I have no idea. Maybe one day Eon will make an origin film with a young actor who looks like James Bond.

[Skywalker]

A very good review James.

You mention a lot of the issues I had with the film.

[bjmdds]

I thought I'd try and put down my reaction to Casino Royale:


After faffing about for a couple of years with no sense of direction and craftily allowing Pierce Brosnan to enter his fifties so he would be easier to sack Eon announced the next Bond film would be Casino Royale. I was excited because as any Bond fan knows Casino Royale is the last piece in the jigsaw so to speak, the Fleming book that started it all and slipped through their grasp. Soon after this was announced word filtered out that this was a Bond Begins or prequel or Bond reset or whatever the f**k you want to call it. Batman Begins and Jason Bourne seemed to have a big influence on this but then Bond did invent the modern action film and has pilfered from other fads and trends over the decades. Anyway, a young James Bond actor was promised. He would be 28 according to Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell and we would see how Bond became, er, Bond.

Roll on to november 2006 and I sit in my local cinema and watch Casino Royale. I leave the cinema in no doubt whatsoever that it is my least favourite film in the series. I'm not sure I ever want to watch it again and this coming from someone who owns all the previous films and has seen each one about 500 million times. In the lead role Daniel Craig has all the charm and panache of a can of tuna. He's a very good actor and there is nothing that wrong with his performance but he just doesn't fit this role. The qualities he brings to the part include: teeth-clenching, staring off into space, lip wobbling, grunting, stoic facial expressions, snapping out often leaden dialogue and looking serious. He ruined the torture scene with his overwrought theatrics and failed to make me laugh once. Connery, Moore and Brosnan knew their way around a one-liner and could all make me laugh with a facial expression. The latest Bond is sorely lacking in this dept and IMO humour is an important part of Bond,. I don't mean cheesy OTT humour but stuff like "Do you mind if my friend sits this one out? She's just dead." There is nothing like that in CR. No corking Bond moment that you remember. The PTS was very short and ruined by the trailer. I hate the theme and Craig surely lacks the Milk-Tray man looks for the close-ups he recieves in the title sequence. I hated Judi Dench being back. I thought Le Chiffre and Vesper were unmemorable. The card-game was average. The construction chase was ludicrous and undermined the tone of the rest of the film. They cut silly set-pieces out of The Living Daylights here they put them in. As the film dragged on I found myself not caring about Vesper or the continuation revenge storyline that promises to surface in the next film. Worst of all I didn't care about 'Bond', who was a surly, charmless sociopath and not an especially charismatic or interesting person to spend a couple of hours with.

On the plus side the film had flashes of colour and exoticism. I did like Jeffrey Wright as Felix. He made the most of his small role. The film was certainly brave and striving for something, and while I admit it was time sooner or later to try something new I didn't care for the final result and, crucially, the actor they picked.

How did Bond become Bond? I have no idea. Maybe one day Eon will make an origin film with a young actor who looks like James Bond.

Excellent insight James. Bond as a sociopath, who would have ever believed that?! I too have no interest to watch this film, in fact, except for the beginning, I was bored. Craig lacks charisma and charm, BOTH vital to Bond. Eon tried something new, and they DID succeed, this time. Let us see how long this course of Bond will last.