Comments on: Review: Casino Royale

By: 007bondrox

007bondrox — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:44:09 +0000

I would also say 5/5
But is that scene the one in the staircase? I was pretty disturbed at the scene..and I was over 15.

By: Vic

Vic — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:12:31 +0000

It’s as close as any of the Bond movies have been in a looooong time to “old school” (read: Connery) Bond.

Unfortunately the director of “Casino Royale” won’t be doing the next one, so the quality level may not be there.

Vic

By: Randy

Randy — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:53:58 +0000

I thought it was great compared to Bond movies from the last couple decades. But that’s like comparing it to Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Bond once meant tough, smart, cool gadgetry, and incredibly hot girls. Somehow tough fell out of the equation. Don’t even mention that Remington Steel guy to me. What a colossal mistake he was. Remington Steel was definitely missing the tough gene. He was anything but tough. All the franchise needed was to put tough back in. I can only presume Remington Steel got the girl, but I never bothered to watch one of his movies to find out. If he did get the girl it was only because the script said so…and I bet it wasn’t believable. My point is Bond has been synonymous with Suck for a long time. This movie is definitely better than Suck. But are you all sure it measures up to old school Bond?

By: Murali

Murali — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:55:50 +0000

yes.. Bond is back again with fresh air. The way they presented BOND is starting from 00 is too good. I myself give 5 stars for the movie.

No doubt about Craig as new agent. He perfectly suits the character.

Well done..!! Craig..

By: Vic

Vic — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:07:00 +0000

I think it’s worth raving about as compared to the last few Bond movies which were in my opinion approaching the level of the old live action “Batman” TV show with Adam West in terms of being “out there” in regards to stunts, gadgets and plot.

Hopefully the next one will pull out all the stops with Craig in full “Bond” mode.

Vic

By: Nick Skeens

Nick Skeens — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:14:49 +0000

I was somewhat disappointed, probably because of the hype. I was especially irritated by the long poker game (yawn) and the sinking house in Venice. What was that about? Daniel Craig was good, that much I grant, but there wasn’t enough action, I didn’t feel Craig was convincing enough in his attempt to communicate love for Vesper, (the love scenes manage to fail to do this, despite being so bloody long). Vesper’s betrayal/loyalty twist at the end was poorly handled, and the second group of villains weren’t set up well enough. Worth seeing, yes, worth raving about, definitely not. Also, when you’re having you’re goolies whipped, it is definitely really hard to speak, not only for the searing pain, but for the waves of nausea. Craig didn’t get that across that at all. Next one had better have more action in it.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:14:02 +0000

I agree with you that crade was a kick ass bond but the film was just borin

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:53:27 +0000

It sounds like this is the “Batman Begins” of the Bond franchise… it’s about time. I want to see this one, and I’m not usually a Bond movie fan.

Good job on the review…

Brian

By: Simone

Simone — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:53:11 +0000

I agree with you Vic although I would rate it a 5 stars. I am seeing again this week!

Craig is so kewl as Bond indeed!