Casino Royale

Rotten Tomatoes:
95% 70 positive, 4 negative Average rating: 7.9/10
Cream of the Crop: 93%, average rating: 7.9/10
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/?show=all

Metacritic:
82 - 22 reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/casinoroyale

My b/f will be happy for this..

This is good news, so much this may be the first bond I ever see in theaters.

It's actually at 4fresh 0rotten on the official tomatometer critic review, so the negative probably wont be counted

Can, not, wait, for, this, film!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it is only 4 reviews!!!!

SR had 90%+ with its first 4 reviews so i am guessing thsi will go down to 70%.

The 5th official tomatometer rating is up from Variety ( very positive )

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932 ... id=31&cs=1

Starts off with 5 fresh reviews with a 7.7 rating.

I'm still boggled by how they could botch the opening credits as it's apparently obvious they did. How hard is it to just get a good female singer to record a soulful ballad and then put it over some silhouetted images of women? It's the kind of thing that today's advertising firms could do while blindfolded, so a movie studio should be able to manage it.

I'm not saying that Cornell's song completely sucks, it's grown on me but even if one likes it, it's just not an opening credits kind of song.

I dont see the problem with the New Bond song, the credits as you can hear it with some of the cartoon shots looks pretty impressive and looks like it fits nicely. I think its very average for a Bond song, not great, but I can think of much worst ones.

To me it isn't a question of the quality of the song, as much as the type of song it is. It reminds me of Moby's song at the end of Bourne Identity, perfect for end credits.

OK, now it's at 100.

Someone tell me how that is mathmatically possible.

the guardian review is suddenly not being counted towards the meter ...

Wonder why?

not sure. gazette is a big paper and would think it counts towards it.

i won't be surprised if RT pulled it just to keep that 100% going ...

exactly

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MiTOV6Nu0iw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

fuck it

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-bKrKI4cq1U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

Edited, as skeptical as I am about the change to 100%.

It's not a change, it was the unofficial tomatometer. Which is where they also include critics and sites that they dont count in the official rating.

Another positive from HR

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/fil ... ?&rid=8223

To think, it was mere months ago that people on the net were booing and hissing and calling it the end of the franchise. A few years ago, people were praising Die Another Day all the the place, and not that it's en vogue to bash it, they flock.

I had initial reservations about Craig's looks, but seeing him in Layer Cake and Munich eased my mind, and his hair doesn't look blonde. He does sort of pull off that Connery-ish vibe. He pulls off the humorous quips, which was Dalton's biggest problem. I think in this age of "dark is in" plays to his favor, and Dalton would have probably been much more successful if he was the new Bond in today's marketplace.

The villian's name is being pronounced "la sheef", and I was always under the impression (due to the TV adaption in which Peter Lorre played the villian) that it was pronounced "La shifray". That's going to take me time to recover from.

The movie's not out yet though and just because the critics are liking Craig doesn't mean the average viewer who still recognizes Brosnan as BOND will..

Could this actually be the first Bond that can be taken seriously? I sure do hope so...

Uh...I don't think the 44 year old franchise is waiting on YOUR seal of approval...

Um... okay. My question still stands...

And people are still not caring...