Another great addition to the Bond franchise. Craig kicks ass as the new 007. I've heard a few say his performance harkens back to Connery, but I didn't see that at all, much more like Timothy Dalton, but with more charisma. Great action and set-pieces, the construction site chase being truly remarkable in its stunt-work and choreography and Campbell showed, as he has before in Goldeneye and Zorro, that he has the chops in this area. More than that though, I really liked the relationship between Vesper (a ridiculously gorgeous Eva Green) and James and how we are presented with the foundations of his character for future films. He was already a hardass at the beginning of the film, but after falling in love, getting betrayed and watching the woman drown in front of your eyes, the dude is going to be unstoppable. That's why that ending shot is so bloody fantastic, holding the machine gun and uttering for the first time the famous "Bond, James Bond". Good stuff.

A-

Bad news: It was a huge disappointment.
Good news: I'm a liar, it was actually one of the best (perhaps since Goldfinger). Wonderful, wonderful acting, scenery, direction, score, class... the list goes on! A superb film!

My favorite movie this year. I absolutely loved it, and I don't even think it was too long. It was just right. Loved it. Loved Craig. Loved the action. Loved the poker scenes. Everything.

Grade: A+

second viewing today...it didnt hold up. was very boring.

I very much enjoyed it. I usually like James Bond movies, although the last few have been hit and miss (liked Die Another Day and Goldeneye, did not like World Is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies much).

Daniel Craig is very, very good. Eva Green is also good.

So, yeah.

B+

This movie has more false endings than ROTK.

The difference is I wanted this one to end.

*

I... don't know.

I was really sick tonight, so I think I need to see this again.

isnt it very boring?

wheres the fuckin entertainment after the airport scene??????

I thought the airport scene was the boring part.

Saw it for a second time, and it held up greatly for me. Biggest difference was that this time was the first hour no longer was a flaw, I caught onto the plot points and details of it this time and realized it's necessity to the main story, and the action scenes no longer seemed too long. Rest of the film that was already amazing, just got better.

I have to say that with the first hour good and the overall movie improved in my mind, this movie has upgraded to pretty much a modern classic, A+ and in my top 30 of all time. It is that good.

Casino Royale is a clinic in filmmaking. Acting, direction, cinematography, screenplay, score(!), set pieces, lighting, it is just perfect, fucking amazing. 2006 has been overall a great year, 3 A+s for me so far with this, Little Miss Sunshine, and The Departed... last year I didn't have anything past a low A.

...

By the way, random observation, but did anyone notice the Richard Branson cameo? In the science centre/airport security entrance, the guy Bond is chasing goes through the left side and Branson is standing in the right. On first sight I thought my eyes were just playing tricks on me, but on second I'm certain it's him, heh.

[font=century gothic]I noticed him, but it scares me that he paid for that cameo. How long was he on screen for? Less than a second? You'd figure he'd at least have a line like in Superman Returns.[/font]

Hmm... I don't know. I just really enjoyed this movie. I didn't find it too long at all, let alone boring. I find myself bored during 80 minute movies, so to sustain my attention for 140 minutes is almost a miracle. I can only compare it to Pulp Fiction, in that both are long, long movies, but I didn't find myself bored through either one.

Very good film. Not sure I enjoyed it more than Goldeneye, but it was extremely close. Some of the lines were a bit hokey here and there (in particular between Vesper and Bond when they start "falling in love"), and it went on for too long, but otherwise sound as a pound.

Craig's still a pug-faced uggo though.

Interesting thing about Casino Royale vs. any Bond film after Thunderball is... every time the film tried to be actually funny, it succeeded.

In your top 30 And a modern classic And rates an A+?????

You must have LOW standards. No offense.

Who's that directed at?

[font=century gothic]I think Shack.[/font]

Good enough, but I agree with Shack's comments (maybe a "modern classic" would be better decided by time). It's definitely in my top 25, and maybe higher.

If that means I have low standards, so be it. The fact that "SAW III" and "Snakes on a Plane" are in my top five of the year should probably prove that point, but I don't care.

other than the 10 minutes of sappiness. solid. a bit longer than required though

[font=century gothic]I agree with him too. I'll see it a second time to confirm it, but this easily makes my Top 50. It's just the perfect James Bond film.

Also, I asked this in my post but it got overlooked (Not directed directly at you X). For a film that was supposed to be missing gadgets, am I the only one who think this had plently of them?[/font]

Exactly! I totally agree.



While Casino Royale is far from one of the best films of the year, it can definitely take the award for one of the most entertaining. Even though it gets off to a shakey start, the first fourty five minutes were uninteresting and dull, it picks up when Eva Green turns up and it doesn't let you go until the final bit of dialogue. All of the performances were surprisingly good, especially Eva Green and Judi Dench. The end flood scene was spectacular to watch and I was on the edge of my seat. Other than that, there isn't much to say. It's a fun, entertaining film I definitely recommend!

8/10 (B+)

So you didn't enjoy the opening segment in how BOND achieved his 00 Status in black and white??

Should be directed at me too, on second viewing I absolutely agree with Shack. Honestly the only action movies I feel I could safely say are better are Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Fellowship of the Ring, with Terminator 2 being on par.

I liked it.

It's just that... I don't know. This is a good Bond flick, it's just not the kind I'm used to. I guess I shouldn't have expected a Pierce Brosnan kind-of Bond, but without Brosnan. But it is a good Bond, and definitely a good start to a fresh series. The poker scenes were intense (for me, at least). I liked the construction scene a lot, too. There were gaps in the film that went too slow, like around the airport scene and everything after the torture scene, which was also a fantastic scene. Daniel Craig pulled it off. In my opinion, he's definitely not the better Bond in comparison to Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery, but a notch above the rest. The biggest problems for me were the uneven pacing, the awful theme song and credits scene at the beginning (kind of broke tradition without the dancing ladies) and all the false endings near the end. But everything else was quite good. Different, but I welcome it.

B+

I may watch it on Wednesday. This is the first modern Bond film that I didn't see on Opening Day.