I just saw this POS-it really is the nadir of the Bond genre. first of all-utterly formulaic-you know EXACTLY what is going to happen, at least 15 minutes in advance. Second: the guy who plays Bond is really creepy-not handsome, and with a very off smile-reminds you a bit of ted Bundy. third: just what is this evil organization up to, anyway-they want to blow up a 747-why? The whole thing is just one big ad for Sony/Ericsson cell phones. and i don’t see how Bobd can jump 100 foot off a building and not break at least ONE bone.
All in all, a boring piece of trash!
I certainly prefer Casino Royale to the language of the OP.
The movie had its ups and downs, but in general I think it was a very refreshing take on a stale franchise. Great suits and more space for Judy Dench, these are good things.
I’ll never be comfortable with the shower scene however.
Startling different. Bond as bad-ass. Much more like the books.
On the other hand, I had difficulty with the plot. (Who the hell poisoned him? Why? How did he save himself?)
So overall I liked it, although it is very, very different from all that has preceded it.
By the way, they wanted to blow up the plane in order to regulate the stock market.
Hear, hear.
What an incredibly bad movie that was.
The flow of it was just incredibly bad.
It starts with a few scenes where you get to find out that Bond is not really a secret agent, but just an ordinary hitman.
Then you get some nice actions scenes.
Then for some reason you are treated to a bunch of romance scenes which completely drains the speed out of the movie and it ends with another 20 minutes of action.
I was bored to tears after the first hour and a half.
And Timothy Dalton was a much better Bond !! 
I beg to differ. I thought this was the best Bond in years. It could stand on it’s own as a not-Bond movie if they’d change a few names. Good acting, good action, good plot. Daniel Craig is dripping hot. Give me him over the pretty boys that have been in the last few Bond movies any day.
Hear, hear. I loved it.
And I thought the shower scene was amazing.
Jeez, I actually really liked it. I thought the several plot twists in the end were pretty good (even though I could see that a plot twist was coming I couldn’t tell what it was going to be). Fairly action packed and racy enough to keep my attention and I’m notorious for falling asleep during any movie. This one kept me awake, one of the rare movies I watched in one shot.
Hear, hear!
As has been stated, Bond is more like he was in the books. In them, he was not Inspector Gadget, but a human who could be hurt and had to rely on his wits, training, and often luck. He was more like Sean Connery in Dr. No. ‘You’ve had your six.’ As the films progressed they became ever more outlandish, especially when The Smirk That Swallowed James Bond Whole began playing the title character in the '70s. I liked that they went back to a story that didn’t rely on gadgets.
As a fan of the series, it’s surprising that I didn’t see Casino Royale until a few weeks ago. I’ve just been busy. I knew virtually nothing about it, other than it was supposed to have been based more closely on the book than previous Bond films. It was a surprise that this was a ‘reset’. All of the other adventures haven’t happened, and this is Bond’s first mission as a Double-Nought Spah. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist.) I had to change gears quickly, as I was expecting a continuation. This could breathe new life into the series, as it seems to me that the books are fair game again. I wouldn’t mind seeing some remakes that stick more closely to the original stories. (I thought OHMSS followed the book pretty closely.)
I liked Daniel Craig as Bond. Bond was described as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. I’m most familiar with Carmichael from To Have And Have Not, and Craig doesn’t particularly look like him; but he’s closer to the ‘look’ than any of the other Bonds. I’d like to see him in more Bond films to see how he measures up against Connery over time.
I, too, must take issue with the OP. Casino Royale rocked. The best Bond in years, I’d say. Truer in spirit to the books in spirit, with a great opening song, some amazing action sequences, a frostily correct relationship between Bond and M, the obligatory beautiful women, casino scenes that held my interest (and I’m not a gambler), and a killer closing scene. Daniel Craig really made the part his own.
cactus waltz, perhaps you meant to write that they wanted to blow up the plane in order to manipulate the stock market? Le Chiffre was expecting the share price of the airline manufacturer to plummet after he blew up the prototype giant jet.
I didn’t like Casino Royale much myself. Less and less like the Bond I’ve grown to love, and Daniel-what’s-his-face didn’t fit the role at all. A decent movie, but a horrid Bond flick.
I want my Pierce Brosnan back. 
I don’t care for action movies in general, but I thought Casino Royale was great. Daniel Craig was terrific–sexy with an edge of menace. And I really liked the Vesper character as well.
I thought Casino Royale was the best Bond in a long time. I fell asleep watching the last one I think. The opening sequence was incredible (watching them jump from the crane made me dizzy), Bond was a bad ass tough guy, not just a genteel spy, beautiful women, a classic Aston Martin (DB5?) and a dash of the ol’ ultra violence.
I should watch that again soon …
I really enjoyed “Casino Royale”…but I did not think it was a good “Bond” movie. This may not make much sense, but I enjoyed pretty much everything about the movie (see exception below). I just had a real problem with Craig as Bond. So if I simply look at it as a different character - a newcomer making his way up the ranks to “00” status, then it is a very enjoyable movie.
The one exception (and this goes with the not Bond thing) was that I was sorely disappointed with the blatant sell-out to use Texas Hold 'em, and not Baccarat as the showdown game with Le Chiffre. Although I can see the plot aspect of the strategy with the game (Baccarat has far less strategy - no bluffing). But it seemed such a blatant marketting ploy to cash in on the Hold 'em craze sweeping the nation (at least all the cable sports channels and then some).
As to some of the questions:
Why blow up a 747 ? - It wasn’t a 747, it was a new super-plane that was going to propel the stock of the airline maker. Le Chiffre was going to cash in by ruining that company’s stock.
Who poisoned Bond, and how did he save himself ? - Le Chiffre (via henchmen) poisoned Bond for the obvious reason that Bond presented the only challenge to Le Chiffre winning the poker tournament.
As to how he saved himself, this was the coolest gadgetry in the movie. Remember that implant he receives early on in the movie ? Not only does it let MI-6 know his where-abouts, but it is also sampling his blood and vitals to provide insight into what is going on with his body. From this information, the guys back in the lab are able to determine what he’s poisoned with, and how to treat it. Bond’s Astin Martin happens to also come equipped with a set of antidotes for “popular” lethal poisons. And the extra bonus, it also comes equipped with a defibulator (sp ?) !
Sure this harkens back to James West always being equipped with the right gadget. But I found this far more believable than the “invisible car”.
I really agree with this. Bond should play Baccarat. Texas Hold’em? A British agent? Come on. Texas Hold Em is a child’s game compared to the dignity and elegance of Baccarat.
Humph. Not only was CR one of the best Bond movies in years, it’s firmly in the running for the best Bond movie, ever, crappy theme song excepted.
Give Daniel Craig a few more outings and he could end up eclipsing Sean Connery as the best James Bond. He’s that good. Definitely better than James bond as foppish cartoon character.
Agreed. As I said, I went into the film knowing virtually nothing about it; but I’ve read the book and have seen the 1950s Climax! version. I was like, ‘What? I’ve never heard of that in baccarat!’ Then I remembered hearing that they went to poker. Blatant pandering.
I don’t remember the attempt in the book, as it’s been a while since I’ve read it. Wasn’t it that someone tried to shoot him? I suppose they had to have a gadget in the film, but I really wish they’d not. I’ve never really liked the gadgets that were too specific, like the bezel buzzsaw or the magnetic unzipper in the Submariner in Live And Let Die or the grappling hook Seamaster in The World Is Not Enough. I like the ‘general purpose’ gadgets like the briefcase in From Russia With Love that had the anti-tamper gas bomb and the secret throwing knives.
I loved it , too. It made me realize what a pansy James Bond had become, as portrayed by Brosnan and Moore. It was hugely refreshing, an exciting movie, and didn’t rely on farcical gadgets or plot twists.
I thought Casino Royale was one of the best action movies I’ve ever seen, and probably ranks among the very best James Bond films.
It jumpstarted a franchise that was, in my opinion, desperately in need of being put out of its misery. The films had become bloated, bombastic, CGI-laden affairs that were becoming a chore through which to sit. Casino Royale returned Bond to his roots (in several ways): instead of invisible cars, he relies on his quick wits and brute strength (brilliantly displayed in the early Parkour sequence when he simply busts through a wall to continue a pursuit). Skillwise, he was overmatched in that chase; he used his other talents to get his man.
The writing, I thought, was superb: an engaging storyline with nods to Bond’s past that were spiked to let viewers know that this is a new Bond. The references to “Shaken, not stirred,” and “Bond. James Bond” were absolutely brilliant.
I liked the fact that Casino Royale’s Bond consistently gets the crap beaten out of him – his predecessors couldn’t be bothered to suffer more than a face scratch. Because of this, and the fact that he’s not a typically handsome man, Craig made a much more believable Bond.
It’s telling that it’s been many, many years since I’ve been able to say that the last James Bond movie makes me look forward to seeing the next James Bond movie.