Who else dislikes Casino Royale?

T

topher7qb

New member
It seems everyone likes Casino Royale, but i just wanna see if there are people like me who think everything about the film was wrong. Die Another Day was wrong in a lot of ways like a far fetched plot. This film corrected that, but changed other areas that didn't need changing. Besides Daniel Craig not being such a likeable Bond, Casino Royale was too violent. James Bond was too aggressive. Like when he chased the man and shot him in the beginning. And the last bit. He just seemed to be more of a cold blooded killer in the film, which is all wrong. Bond used to kill but only in self defence. Even the opening sequence was pretty bloody, with stabbed figures lying with blood pouring. And where was the humour to lighten things up a bit? This is certainly not an easy to watch bond movie that could be shown on tele on a bank holiday afternoon. The casino scene went on for far too long aswell. I felt myself falling asleep. In general, there wasn't a lot of action or excitement in the film at all compared to previous movies. And where was the action bit before the music? Some bits were ok but, even though i shall probably get slated for my opinion, i don't see how anyone could call this one of the best bond movies, cause there wasn't much that was memorable about it. All in all, a big disappointment. So does anyone feel the same?
 
James Bond is a paid assassin. His "licence to kill" is effectively sanction from the Government to carry out hits. You need no such status to "kill in self defence"

He is cold-blooded, that is his job. And as he says in the film, he wouldn't be very good at it otherwise. This Bond is closer to the books.

I agree it is violent and I agree it does not seem like Bank Holiday viewing, but we still have all the other films as well.
 
I agree with the OP - thought it was boring and tedious, and Daniel Craig totally unlikeable. Not what I expect of Bond movies at all and I don't care about the books - I go to the flicks to be entertained, not sent to sleep!
 
I think it (Casino Royale) lacked typically Bond-like features ie. the over-the-top-ease with which he kills guys; his suave, perfect looks even after taking a beating; his sometimes-funny quips etc.

I think although those things make a bond film cheesy, they also MAKE it a bond film.

This could have been any old action film had the names been different. Danile Craig did ok though.
 
I think this was a Bond film for people like me - who liked the books and short stories, but rather disliked the daftness of the majority of films (Bond was never supposed to be a nice guy). That does, of course, mean that it will lose people who like the daft films, but for me, it's nice to see Bond get back on track after 20 years in the wilderness.
 
The only thing I really disliked was the length - kept thinking it was coming to an end when in fact it wasn't, and I could sense other people in the cinema getting restless too. As a stand-alone action movie it was great and so was Daniel Craig. It'll never be a Bond classic though...
 
Wow, yet another case on these boarRAB of really, really uncalled for anti-americanism.

Was a fantastic film though, didn't feel it dragged on or anything, was thirsty for more! I thought I'd miss the over the top scenes (though the stuff Bond and that guy he was chasing at the beginning did was pretty OTT) and Q, but didn't at all, was a great film.

I do see how if you didn't play poker at all, the casino scenes might drag a little, but there was enough other stuff going on.

I look forward to the next one.
 
I have no idea how to play poker, and still thought those scenes were tense and exciting. It was all about the subtly of the acting and tension of the scene, and nothing to do with the carRAB on the table from where I sat.
 
i saw it last night, thought it was top class. the series needed refreshing and daniel craig was perfect for the part....he brings a extra layer of depth to the character. anyone who had seen him in other roles would agree- Layer Cake, for example could of been just another gangster film if it was'nt for the way he potrayed the leading man.

I think if you don't like it that's fine, but I think you are being a little blinkered if you think it could of carried on much longer as it was after Die Another Day (which was one of the worst Bond films IMO). One more of those and it would of been finished.
 
I agree.

It is a modern phenomenon that so many people don't appreciate drama based on character and circumstance. I enjoyed all the casino scenes - I didn't need sex or explosions to hold my attention.
 
As nothing 'genital' was shown in the torture scene and every schoolboy knows just how painful that would be I can't see a problem with it.

G
 
I agree with this. Seems to me most people dont like the film due to the lack of action. Never mind the 3 major action scenes it has.

Plus as someone who has no clue about poker either i enjoyed the casino scenes and how they were broken up not to make it seem to long. And the acting to get across the tension at the table was what it was all about.

The whole point in Casino Royale is this is why James Bond is the man he is. What happened in it shapes him into the more familiar James Bond. Though i never want to see them go back to another Die Another Day type rubbish.

Daniel Craig is Bond the way Flemming wrote him. Not the joke figure that the movies were turning or turned him into. He definately is the best Bond since Connery.

Roll on Bond 22
 
Totally agree. I hadn't bothered going to see a Bond film at the cinema until this one. I was unsure how I'd react to the stripped back reboot concept as I feel it failed when FYEO tried it first time round and it soon went OTT again.

Strangely I'm also a fan of the original 'caper' movie (for completely different reasons) but this was quality gripping stuff.

And DC is well fit :D

G
 
Oh the fact Mr Craig is easy on the eye is by all means a bonus but its his acting that makes the film. (Before i am getting it in the neck for saying i only like the film because i like how he looks). The range of emotions he shows is superb.

Bond 22&23 will answer the question, could he be the best bond ever?! Then again can you ever really have an answer to that question as it is afterall down to personal taste which one you prefer.
 
It would be surprising if parent's complained.

I'm not necessarily talking about Casino Royale when I say 12As should have a minimum requirement. That particular scene was just a naked Daniel Craig showing nothing too revealing, getting hit quite a lot.
I just think some parents should have discression when they take six year olRAB to 12As.
 
Back
Top