Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I saw a sneak preview of this film. One word... AMAZING. It is the type of Bond film all Bond fans have been waiting for. No more cute, wink wink, laugh out loud unbelievable moments we've all grown tired of. What Casino Royale did was make a very real film, with real life consequences and added a crap load of action. Awesome!!!

Daniel Craig has taken the Bond character and ran away with it. I never saw a more believeable Bond character since the early films of Sean Connery. Ian Flemming's intentions and spirit for the story and character was taken into major consideration and the results were nothing but positive.

Daniel Craig takes the Bond character to his early days before he is granted the infamous double O status. Casino Royale's Bond is an unrefined, reckless, unpolished, aggressive, injury prone, cold blooded killer. In essence, a raw piece of meat, that as the film goes on and he gains more experience becomes this prime piece of sirloin. All the Bond signatures we've all come to love and expect are not a part of Bond's nature, but gradually falls into place at the right moments through his experiences. The journey it took to get there is the most fun to watch.

What makes Bond such a fan favorite in the past was the way the writers and directors romanticized the character. Bond always had the best gadgets (toys), cool clothes, money, he travelled, women galore, he was smooth, he could fight and play a mean game of cards. Who wouldn't want to be him?

Casino Royale took it one step further and said, "What kind of man emotionally would it take to be a double O agent and what are the dangers involved in such an exciting career?" Casino Royale's Bond is bruised, bloodied, beaten, stabbed, poisoned and tortured in several occasions. He walks around half the film covered in scabs and scars. He is detached from his feelings and makes a clear statement how he prefers married women because it is less complicated. With no family and friends, he truly is a man alone with nothing to live for, which makes him the perfect candidate for a double O agent.

I have not given away too much of the plot, for it is better for all Bond fans to see Casino Royale and experience it for one's self. It's one of the best Bond film to come out in decades and ranks in my top 2 or 3 of James Bond films of all time.

Wow! THanks for the review -- I am really excited to see to this and I really glad to hear how well Craig did. Definitely going to see ti this weekend -- I have been such a dork and ahve been playing the strategy game for the past three/four weeks to get me ready and I think I am ready -- have you played the game yet? Fun stuff.

A quick note... it is important to remember that this story is supposed to be about Bond before he become the James Bond we all know and love. It's his first time being a double O agent. This is why the writers took liberties with the opening gun barrel scene, the vodka martini, the Aston Martin, and the infamous "Bond, James Bond". I found it a great choice to a very old and established character. We get to see how Bond becomes Bond. Think "Batman Begins", which was another great film.

yay, going to see it today! i hope that it does not sell out and great news, I finally made it out of the airport on the game! perfect timing or what?

For a girl that's never seen more than 2 minutes of ANY Bond movie, I actually liked it pretty well. I saw it last night with Zach and for what I can remember of it (hehehe), it was cool! I'm not much on action movies, but I go for this one.

Originally posted by xkalybr
I saw a sneak preview of this film. One word... AMAZING. It is the type of Bond film all Bond fans have been waiting for. No more cute, wink wink, laugh out loud unbelievable moments we've all grown tired of. What Casino Royale did was make a very real film, with real life consequences and added a crap load of action. Awesome!!!

Daniel Craig has taken the Bond character and ran away with it. I never saw a more believeable Bond character since the early films of Sean Connery. Ian Flemming's intentions and spirit for the story and character was taken into major consideration and the results were nothing but positive.

Daniel Craig takes the Bond character to his early days before he is granted the infamous double O status. Casino Royale's Bond is an unrefined, reckless, unpolished, aggressive, injury prone, cold blooded killer. In essence, a raw piece of meat, that as the film goes on and he gains more experience becomes this prime piece of sirloin. All the Bond signatures we've all come to love and expect are not a part of Bond's nature, but gradually falls into place at the right moments through his experiences. The journey it took to get there is the most fun to watch.

What makes Bond such a fan favorite in the past was the way the writers and directors romanticized the character. Bond always had the best gadgets (toys), cool clothes, money, he travelled, women galore, he was smooth, he could fight and play a mean game of cards. Who wouldn't want to be him?

Casino Royale took it one step further and said, "What kind of man emotionally would it take to be a double O agent and what are the dangers involved in such an exciting career?" Casino Royale's Bond is bruised, bloodied, beaten, stabbed, poisoned and tortured in several occasions. He walks around half the film covered in scabs and scars. He is detached from his feelings and makes a clear statement how he prefers married women because it is less complicated. With no family and friends, he truly is a man alone with nothing to live for, which makes him the perfect candidate for a double O agent.

I have not given away too much of the plot, for it is better for all Bond fans to see Casino Royale and experience it for one's self. It's one of the best Bond film to come out in decades and ranks in my top 2 or 3 of James Bond films of all time.

Couldn't agree with you more.... This movie's definetely up there with Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough. Pierce Brosnan was great, and I'll always remember him as being Bond (Goldeneye was the First 007 movie I ever saw) But Daniel Craig did an excellent job, and the action was phenomenal

It looks amazing, and Eva Green as a 'Bond girl' was great casting, she is excellent.

It was fantastic.

One of the greatest Bond films.

Great acting all around, although i feel the end was quite cheap, the film was amazing.

It's poo that they held the "Bond, James Bond" until the very end!

Err... that was kinda the point.

Originally posted by Kelly_LS
It's poo that they held the "Bond, James Bond" until the very end!

It was actually perfect. Remember, Bond is very raw in this film without his well know signatures, "Shaken not stirred and Bond, James Bond." to name a few.

That at the end of the film, after all he has went through, to say the famous line was awesome. It shows us that Bond has now become "Bond". Mr. Cool with a very sharp edge.

Originally posted by xkalybr
It was actually perfect. Remember, Bond is very raw in this film without his well know signatures, "Shaken not stirred and Bond, James Bond." to name a few.

That at the end of the film, after all he has went through, to say the famous line was awesome. It shows us that Bond has now become "Bond". Mr. Cool with a very sharp edge.
Yeah, Zach was complaining wildly about them not adding "Shaken, not stirred." in there! I just think they shouldn't have waited until the very end to add it. Even "I" know that classic line and I've not even seen a Bond film before this one!

Originally posted by Kelly_LS
Yeah, Zach was complaining wildly about them not adding "Shaken, not stirred." in there!
They didn't forget, they chose not to.



Something along the lines of that. I was laughing my ass off.

It was...

Bartender: Shaken or stirred?

Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?

I'm Not a freguent poster in this James Bond Section butthis movie sucked. i think i'll wait fo r the dvd to see it again. But Craighead is not Bond. Stiff as a board!!! Casino has some great action butit's far from a Bond Movie. I understand that it's a origin story and all It's Craig!! Not even close to being Bond.

Originally posted by buffymitch
I'm Not a freguent poster in this James Bond Section butthis movie sucked. i think i'll wait fo r the dvd to see it again. But Craighead is not Bond. Stiff as a board!!! Casino has some great action butit's far from a Bond Movie. I understand that it's a origin story and all It's Craig!! Not even close to being Bond.

Your review worried me, until I noticed that your favorite movies of all time are Gladiator, X-men, and Tomb Raider.

I have to admit, I went in skeptical. I loved the books, was brought up on the original movies and disliked the idea of a reboot of the series. However, I'm a big enough man to admit that I was wrong. I loved the film, Craig made a good bond, he has the perfect facial structure and eyes. It stuck close to the book, although adapted it to make it more modern day. Several of the changes from the book I wasn't fond of, but I can understand why they were done. The action scenes were amazing, and the film really showen that Bond isn't as indestructable as he seemed to be in alot of the older movies. I'd reccomend this film to anyone.

I liked it, except I thought it was a glorified action movie, not a movie about a spy.

i hate how people bash the bond character in this. they're too stupid too realize this is the development into the bond we know.

Why he never falls in love
Why he wants them shaken not stirred
Why he wears a suit or tux
Why he cant have kids (ya lol)
How he came to say Bond, James Bond
How they track him across the globe

I loved it

Originally posted by Myth
What was cool about that was his first job, so it makes since that it was easier.

I agree, to an extent, i just thought he could have been a bit more threatening... i mean, to me, it seemed like the main reason bond was sent was because he was good at cards, not because he was a double-oh...

to me "casino royale" was VERY GOOD diffrent then the rest but good the last couple scenes were real plot twists and the whole casino scenes with the poker game where actually the real intense parts overall 9/10 for me.

Originally posted by pr1983
i mean, to me, it seemed like the main reason bond was sent was because he was good at cards, not because he was a double-oh... That was the main reason he was sent. He was in trouble with M because he wasn't doing as well as they thought, but he got a second chance for the sole reason that he was the best card player. He then proved himself and was able to keep his job. I think it makes it more interesting having him not perfect.

Originally posted by Spartan005
Couldn't agree with you more.... This movie's definetely up there with Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough. Pierce Brosnan was great, and I'll always remember him as being Bond (Goldeneye was the First 007 movie I ever saw) But Daniel Craig did an excellent job, and the action was phenomenal

yikes up there with the world isnt so much a compliment. And Brosnan always remembered as bond? I guess if you started with goldeneye thats ok, but you should go back and see the old ones. Brosnan was pretty good, Craig was good, but Connery IS bond.


I thought they did Casino Royale very well. I was worried about Craig, cause I dont think he quite has the look but he did the part well, and I think I can learn to love him. Mostly I just loved the writing and everything SOOO much more then all of the recent Bond movies, which rely totally on lame 1 liners and FX shots.


Originally posted by pr1983
I agree, to an extent, i just thought he could have been a bit more threatening... i mean, to me, it seemed like the main reason bond was sent was because he was good at cards, not because he was a double-oh...

He was still made a Double 0 so he was still skilled. It wasnt like they took a guy from the mail room who could play poker and made him into super agent. Being a double 0 means your damn good, he got that mission because he happened to excell at poker and M had no choice. And getting to Le Cheffe could prove monumental in taking down some major terrorist so it was a BIG time assignment.


And it was great to see him not perfect and vulnerable. Also see why he just uses women.. how great was the line at the end on the phone with M, "the ***** is dead" He got burned once and he never trusted them again. them being women.

IMO it was great film. a saw it yesterday first action... <3

Originally posted by Myth
That was the main reason he was sent. He was in trouble with M because he wasn't doing as well as they thought, but he got a second chance for the sole reason that he was the best card player. He then proved himself and was able to keep his job. I think it makes it more interesting having him not perfect.

I agree with what you're saying, again to an extent... i know its an origin movie, i just would have liked le chiffre to be, i dunno... badder...

Originally posted by forumcrew
yikes up there with the world isnt so much a compliment. And Brosnan always remembered as bond? I guess if you started with goldeneye thats ok, but you should go back and see the old ones. Brosnan was pretty good, Craig was good, but Connery IS bond.

i think maybe he meant fans of brosnan would always remember him as being a good bond (not on connery's level, because lets be honest, who is... but good enough).



I don't agree with that (with maybe the exception of die another day, which i thought was a bit ott in places), some of the one liners (which have been around since connery's days) are pretty good imo, and even craig had a few... alot of bond movies imo have pretty decent writing...



but thats part of it... i don't doubt for one second that bond is good at what he does (the chase at the start was damn good), or the value of the assignment, i was more worried about le chiffre, he just wasn't as menacing to me as he could have been is all...

'pologies for the length of the post...

Great film. the best bond for years... up there in contest with From russia w/ Love, Goldfinger and goldeneye!

A very welcome change in the franchise and a great movie overall! Loved the more realistic approach and Craig did one hell of a job on this. 8/10

Le Chiffre was a damn good villain! Totally without pity, sadistic and evil, but not a superhuman foe who is defeated by some implausible error he makes. A very human and realistic foe for a more realistic film. And well played, too.

i saw the movie with 4 friends 3 out of 4 said it was the worst bond movie ever,2 of them said craig was horrible,i hated the movie and i think craig was a good actor but not bond for me,i did not once feel like i was in a bond movie,i have reserved judgement because i did not see it but now that i did oh i wish i had my 2hrs and 42 minutes back

i think the script was horrible way too long and the ending was so anti climatic i dont think craig was a good bond but i think he is a good actor

Wow. Congrats on being able to copy/paste your response from one topic to another.

That movie was awesome!

Well the length of the movie could've been shortened a bit, especially because I was a half hour past curfew (not that I'm even home by curfew ever anyway). A lot of the stuff in it could've been taken out and that definately would've made it better but what can I say, I'm not a movie develope so I have no say in the length of it. Again I can't say anything about Bond because I haven't seen any of the other Bond films so I don't know if he was a good role for this or not. But from my point of view I think he was a pretty good Bond.

Just saw it this weekend.

9.5/10

F*cking Awesome.

I only took .5 away for length, which could have been shortened just a bit, maybe 5 min. of the card game, and not had Mathis giving the play-by-play of how Hold 'Em works.



This IS Bond. It's Bond Begins.

I LOVED Daniel Craig in the role, he seems perfect. He's the best since Connery. (my fave)

The conversations were intelligent and well written, particularly between M and James and between Vesper and James on the train.

The action was realistic and in-your-face, with Craig being absolutely believable as the covert killer who's being honed into a fine super-spy.

I liked the pacing of the film, with intense action fights, and exposition and smart diaolouge following one another back and forth.

The movie felt like a slow burn, even with all the fighting, as the experiences James was having seemed to build on one another, and they all led up to the closing moments of the film where he became Bond.


I'm already looking forward to 2008.

James Bond Will Return!

forgive me, but this guy was the worst james bond ever. he stunk. as for the movie, it wasnt much better.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
forgive me, but this guy was the worst james bond ever. he stunk. as for the movie, it wasnt much better.

You're forgiven your misguided opinion.

Seriously though, if he's so bad and the movie stunk, then you might want to explain that to the packed house that I saw it with who all LOVED the film.

Most critics and fans are saying that this one is far better than the last 2 or 3, and more closely in-line with the Connery films of old, but with a modern update to it.

Listen up folks: If you appreciate good pacing, character development, intrigue, and walloping action being in a James Bond film, then this is the one for you.

If Keanu Reeve's performance in Constantine blew you away, then you would have the same opinion as Rouge Jedi.

i just didnt like it. not everyone is gonna like it, you know? the guy just doesnt look like james bond should look. he looks like a jock. sean connery, roger moore, pierce brosnan, even timothy dalton, they all looked like james bond should look. they were all smooth, suave and sophisticated. this new guy just doesnt have it.

walloping action? there were not near enough action scenes if you ask me.

character development? he's james bond!!! the character was developed years ago!!! there is no need for character development.

ok, if you like watching james bond play poker, then i guess thats intrigue.

its not up to you to say my opinion of the movie is misguided. that is implying that your opinion is infallible. as far as a full house goes, i was the only person in the theater on a friday night watching it. what does that tell you?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i just didnt like it. not everyone is gonna like it, you know? the guy just doesnt look like james bond should look. he looks like a jock. sean connery, roger moore, pierce brosnan, even timothy dalton, they all looked like james bond should look. they were all smooth, suave and sophisticated. this new guy just doesnt have it.

walloping action? there were not near enough action scenes if you ask me.

character development? he's james bond!!! the character was developed years ago!!! there is no need for character development.

ok, if you like watching james bond play poker, then i guess thats intrigue.

its not up to you to say my opinion of the movie is misguided. that is implying that your opinion is infallible. as far as a full house goes, i was the only person in the theater on a friday night watching it. what does that tell you?
Notice the "" smilie that sith posted...he was just joking.

Originally posted by Kelly_LS
Notice the "" smilie that sith posted...he was just joking.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You're forgiven your misguided opinion.

Seriously though, if he's so bad and the movie stunk, then you might want to explain that to the packed house that I saw it with who all LOVED the film.

Most critics and fans are saying that this one is far better than the last 2 or 3, and more closely in-line with the Connery films of old, but with a modern update to it.

Listen up folks: If you appreciate good pacing, character development, intrigue, and walloping action being in a James Bond film, then this is the one for you.

If Keanu Reeve's performance in Constantine blew you away, then you would have the same opinion as Rouge Jedi.



didn't you say similar things about superman returns?

Originally posted by pr1983
didn't you say similar things about superman returns? Yes, it appears that my hypocrisy knows no bounds.


Or is it my wisdom?

Originally posted by Kelly_LS
Notice the "" smilie that sith posted...he was just joking.
and i took no offense. i was just expressing how i didnt like the movie.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and i took no offense. i was just expressing how i didnt like the movie.
Yes but at the end you accused him of saying that you were misguided on your opinion, which he did, but only in joke and it seemed that you took it the wrong way.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You're forgiven your misguided opinion.



any confusion? so one has to post a smily in order for it to be a joke?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, it appears that my hypocrisy knows no bounds.


Or is it my wisdom?

No.

i liked casino royale, it was an enjoyable two hours and one of the best movies i've seen all year (and for several months i was going to the cinema once a week, so i saw alot of movies), but i don't see it as being the best bond movie ever (goldfinger and tomorrow never dies being my favourites). it looked to me like a more successful crack at what they were trying to do with the dalton movies, but i'll be honest, i missed q, moneypenny and the more fantastical (sp?) elements of the previous movies... it was a really good movie imo, i'm just not sure whether it was a good 'bond' movie...

in my personal opinion...

great movie. daniel craig is the ballsiest james bond i've seen. "a little bit to the right" officially cemented that. "you died scratching my balls." dude... i would've caved in when le chifferferrfefereff (spelling?) hung the rope on my shoulder. it was refreshing to see james being very crass and unrefined. the opening sequence woudl've been better with a better song. the scene in madagascar was f*cking great. the shower scene was the most vulnerable james bond anybody would ever see. "you cold?" then turns the hot water knob... for those 3 seconds, james was totally pu$$y whipped. it was great that he ordered tha vodka martini down to the tee.

it was also nice to see james running around all beaten up... blooody all the time, scars everywhere. not only that, he didn't have his usual gadgets on him... the laser watch, the glass-shattering ring, the car with 2 machine gun turrets. all he had in casino royale was his fists, a silnced gun, a fast car and an ear piece.

thats another thing. james bond always has the gadgets, its like part of his persona, like macguyver and his roll of duct tape. i was like "wheres the gadgets?"

maybe MI6 didn't feel comfortale investing all that money to a rookie double-0 agent.

or maybe the movie sucked.

Because Bond has no fancy gadgets doesn't mean the film sucked. The movie is about Bonds first mission, MI6 aren't going to invest millions of pounds on gadgets he needs for a POKER GAME! This was 007's first mission, you could call it a test. The movie was better without the gadgets, great action film.

dunno about great, i watched moonraker and octopussy the other night. those are great.

Cool movie.
A modern review of Bond's beginning.
He wears casual or comfortable clothes, but keeping a bit of elegance, he has the body of a decent weight lifter, he can slug it out like a street thug, he is mercyless, but also got a emotional side hard to keep in check cause after all he's the cold hearted killer of the MI6.
It was good to see realistic gadgets and the Aston Martin which wasn't turned into a sort of Knight Rider.
Last bond movies were jumping the shark literally.Exoskeletons on the villains, cars with more weapons than a U.S. Army regiment and stealth systems, I mean come on, it's about a secret agent, but it was going too far.Also Brosnan hasn't got the physical conditon to be a secret agent.He looks like a golf player.Craig eyes look like those of a wild animal blood thirsted and changed to a pleased agent who can do anything he wants for accomplish his task meanwhile doing his personal business also.A perfectly reloaded franchise.
No one is gonna miss Brosnan series, cause the new Bond is gonna show us the agent, not the gadgets

but the gadgets are like part of what makes james bond james bond.

Yes, but so are Batmans.

Batman Begins had a cool car, so did bond.

Batman Begins had a few weapons, so did bond.

Batman Begins had much more realistic, brutal type of fist-fighting.... so did Bond.

They are both successful reboots/re-tellings of the beginning of each character, focusing on character development and slowly weaving in all of the elements that make the character into what we know him as.

BOTH worked very well.


Not liking Casino Royale because it had very little in gadgets would be like not liking Batman Begins because the bat symbol on his suit was all black and not yellow and black.

but batman at least had the batsuit.

And Craig had his tuxedo.

He had an Astin Martin, a vodka martini, a silenced pistol, and beautiful women.


You're welcome to say that Casino Royale wasn't a good film, or that you didn't like it or whatever, but saying that it sucks because of a lack of gadgets seems silly to me.

It was a begin, like Batman Begins, and Craig's James Bond had many of the things that the other Bonds did, and he'll get many more in the next film.

James Bond Will Return!!!

(in 2008 of course)