Click here to go to our new page for Reviews.
  Shaken, but not stirred

Casino Royale is an exceedingly  juvenile film
- an unconvincing mish-mash of staples from
the thriller genre (I mean, please, an oil
tanker fight, a high speed car chase AND a
poker game!) with a plot that has the
consistency of Swiss cheese, duly seasoned
with liberal dollops of mush. For most of the
movie, its protagonist lives perilously on the
edge of the ridiculous, and for all its tortured
soul-searching the film has the emotional
depth of a three day old puddle. It’s an
almost complete waste of time, except for
one not so minor detail - Daniel Craig.
  Casino Royale review by Tiff

This movie did not live up to what I expected
based on the critical and public reviews I had
read. I think the producers attempted to take
it from one genre (fantasy, tongue in cheek,
action/spy movie) to another, (gritty,
serious, action/spy movie) and left it
somewhere in limbo.
  007 è morto.

Here is a brilliantly poignant review from
an Italian movie magazine called “Film”.
The author of this review is a “huge Bond
fan” and in his opinion “’Casino Royale’ is
the worst Bond ever... if this crap IS a
Bond film.”
By floyd_dbmaxx007
A critical review of all the recent James
Bond events and Casino Roayle by a tried
and true, die hard James Bond fan.
  Casino Royale: the new James Bond film.
The relationship between Bond and Vesper is
accorded a few minutes. While we are told
they are mad for each other, little of the
emotional or physical chemistry that would
convince us makes its way to the screen. And
Green and Craig are burdened, more or less
out of the blue, with lines like this: “If the
only thing left of you was your smile and
your little finger, you’d still be more of a man
than anyone I’ve ever met” and “I have no
armour left. You’ve stripped it from me.
Whatever is left of me—whatever I am—I’m

Aside from a few moments reclining with
Vesper, Bond here is oddly machine-like,
almost robotic. He moves rapidly, hurling
himself from one point to the next. Connery’s
Bond had some of the swaggering, almost
lazy self-assurance of the Cold War
“democracies”; Crag is nervous, unhappy,
isolated. Some of this feels appropriate to
the historical moment, but the psychological
changes in the character have not been
worked through; they seem to have evolved
more or less arbitrarily and accidentally.

In the end, this is what makes a “realistic”
Bond an oxymoron. Insofar as a Bond film
comes into contact with social and historical
facts, it must turn them on their head, losing
any of its charm in the process.

Aside from a few entertaining and
adventurous moments, and the lovely
settings, there is very little to Casino Royale.
And what there is, disturbs.
  New James Bond Gadgets a Big Bore.
The movie was OK. I'm pleased to see
less-attractive guys in dramatic roles again;
maybe we'll see the Humphrey Bogarts of the
world getting more work.

As it is, though, I was sorely disappointed by
the lack of Q, or anything sufficiently Q-ish,
in the film. It's not that there were no
gadgets, it's just that they were nearly all
gadgets that actually exist and can be
purchased, which is boring. I'm sure it
makes for great product placement that all
evil plots now involve text messaging, but I
wouldn't call it great cinema.
  Bond 2.1.
Very early it becomes apparent that the
reboot has been stripped down from what I
had expected. I don't know if Craig's casting
played a role in this but I would have to join
that predictable naysayer chorus who feel
that the actor looks a tad mature to be a wild
young agent prone to mistakes and yet to
discover his favourite alcoholic tipple.
  Daniel Craig? Not Bond, James Bond.
He’s Blond, James Blond. He’s a counter-spy,
an impostor, a pretender, a double-agent.
The aura doesn’t match that of the real
  Superspy Vs. Spheniscidae:This Year's Bond
and Dancing Penguin go toe-to-toe.
-- I know everybody’s gushing about it right
now, but once the adrenaline subsides (two
weeks, tops), most will see that it is
obscenely underwritten, with nary a
memorable line to be found.
  Cartoon Bond loses his humanity.This one
stars Daniel Craig as the new Bond, a
blond-haired, blue-eyed dude who looks like
he should be skiing the giant slalom for
Sweden in the next Winter Olympics.

That's bad enough, if you're a traditional 007
fan like me. What's worse is that the
producers have done the unthinkable:
they've turned James Bond into a virtual
Superman. All he's missing is the blue and
red costume with the big S on the chest.
  The spy who gagged me.
Craig is to Connery what Mini-Me is to Austin
Powers' Dr. Evil.
  From a woman's perspective he is neither
sexy nor charming.
This is definitely what one would call a "guy
film" and a " 35 year-old going on 13
year-old guy who lives in his mother's
basement film" at that.
  Gossip Monkey: So, my verdict on this movie
is simply this: Bourne-Lite.
  The 'Royale' treatment: who wants to see
Bond learn a lesson about ego, as if he were
Greg Brady in his "Johnny Bravo" phase?
  Let's All Go to the Movies.
In all seriousness, we don't want our Bonds
angsty and broody and dark. We want our
Bonds making bad jokes and sleeping with
tons of hot women and having no problem
with violence. What made Sean Connery so
badass was because he was the only Bond
really to actually look like he was enjoying
himself. And if you were James Bond, how
could you not be enjoying yourself?
  Bond flick leaves viewer shaken, not stirred.
Beyond a new lead actor, this "Bond" is
different, and that mostly isn't good.  
  Casino Royale is a Bond film for people who
think James Bond films are by and large shite.
  ..the producers didn't show sufficient respect
for the formula.
  Okay, I was willing to reserve judgment until
I saw the film, but now it's official ---- I
don't like a blonde Bond!
  The V Calls Casino Royale's Bluff:
This year, it is Casino Royale, surprise heir to the
throne of Worst Bond Film Ever.
..this isn’t the film he was promised. This is James
Bond as directed by a house-wife, with her 12
year-old son directing the action. Uninspired,
unsuccessful and as much of a franchise-killing
blow as this critic has witnessed.
  Casino Royale, most disappointing Bond film
  A brutish, buff Bond
  I was looking forward to see this film but the
story sure didn’t hold up.
  New Bond Blunted
Casino Royale, retains most of Bond's
essence and practically none of his charms
New Bond and Casino Royale' don't give
audience license to care.
This is where I'm supposed to say, "Bond is
and he's better than ever!"
Well, he is. But he isn't.
  Gut Reaction: Casino Royale
Um, Is That You, Bond?
It's a nice try, throwing romance into the stew,
but after all its expert exertions, Casino Royale
can't rev up the melancholy mood. Which is
appropriate, for this is a Bond with great body but
no soul.
Filmmakers roll the dice with new 007 in
Casino Royale.

Why Mr Bond, we've been expecting you.
The New James Bond: 00-Creepy? I Spy A Really Bad Ending
The Sunday Times: “And you almost feel a
kind of patriotic duty to go out and see it.
Don’t bother. James Bond is dead..”
Debbie Schlussel: I've Seen Casino Royale &
This new dude, Daniel Craig, just doesn't cut
it. He's  DULL. No charisma, no charm, no
suavity and  debonaireness.  Too old and
haggard looking. And he's way too thin  
(scrawny) and small (hair's too short and
ears stick  out, too--like Alfred E. Neuman).
Very blah. Not sexy.  Nice eyes, but nothing
behind them. Would Sir Ian  Fleming fancy
this guy playing Bond? Doubtful."
Parisian film critic Mathieu Carratier on
Casino Royale: " trying to distance itself
from its pedigree, ends up with no pedigree
at all."
"And Daniel Craig isn't Bond. He's Jason
Bourne in five years."
Gossip  Monkey about Casino Royale: -There’
s been various reviews already, though most
are bias.
You might be shaken, but this Bond won't
leave you stirred.
Casino Royale: Good action, but a Bond