Casino Royale Sucks, Worst Bond Movie Ever

Forums: Movies
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I am so pissed I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this disgrace they call a "James Bond" movie. It was garbage. Complete and utter garbage. If I wanted to watch this movie I just would have flipped ESPN poker on and then watch a 5 minute clip from an action movie.

This was one of the worst movies I've seen in my life, nevermind the worst Bond movie hands down.

What was this movie complete trash, I'll tell you:

#1 -- BORING. Bond movies are supposed to be exciting and clever, this movie was a boring, drawn out poker game.

#2 -- No gadgets. The best gadget they could come up with was a friggin difibulator for christ sakes, are you joking? A DIFIBULATOR AS THE TOP GADGET?

#3 -- No car chase. Every Bond movie has some great chase scene in it. But in this movie they tease you in making you think you are escaping the bordem of the poker match with a car chase, but the chase last about 5 seconds when he flips his car.

#4 -- Lack of hot cars. Bond movies are known for having classy cars. However, in the begining we see bond driving a what? A FORD FOCUS?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Is this was bond has been reduced to? Some type of Ford Focus hybrid soccor mom car? Pleeeeease. The two classy cars in the movie were just a snippett you barely even saw.

#5 -- Ugliest Bond girl ever. You think they could have at least found someone hot for this movie. Yeah, sure this girl looks alright, but nothing for a bond girl. The first girl in the movie he met should have had the lead role, anyone, but this girl. Bond girls need to be hot, she was not.

#6 -- Lack of action. There was barely any action scenes in this. He chases a black guy at the begining, and that was great, but other than that, it was boring as hell.

#007 -- The overall lack of 007 feel. Bond movies are known as the ultimate guy movies because of 3 simple ingredients: Action, Hot Women, Hot Cars. This movie lacked all 3. Sure, there were two hot chicks, but you barely saw then, instead some average Suzzie got the lead role. In addition, this guy was the worst James Bond ever. His huge nose, wrinkled and scarred face, and overall look was terrible. I am better looking than this guy, Bond is supposed to be a good looking charming man -- not Joe Shmoe.

CASINO ROYALE SUCKS!

This guy better not make another bond movie. Producers better smarten up and give Christian Bale a call to make the next several Bond movies. Bale matches to visibile discription of a James Bond with his looks, he is an action star, a tremendous actor, and to top it off: he's British! He has a heavy natural British accent that would be PERFECT for Bond.

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/7946/christianbale1fw3.jpg

And listen to Bale naturally talk, he could easily pull off the Bond speech! http://movies.go.com/feature?featureid=855392

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 10,794 • Replies: 63
Topic Closed

No top replies

Not to mention that Bond no longer insists on "shaken not stirred". Now he says he doesn't give a damn. NOT BOND!!!

0 Replies

That line threw me too.

0 Replies

surely it can't be the worst Bond movie. There were some pretty bad ones.

0 Replies

Actually, I didn't think it was so bad. Different. Not bad. But if I ain't looking at Sean, I ain't looking at Bond.

0 Replies

<grin>

0 Replies

Sean's the only. But this one got good reviews...

0 Replies

Jeremiah's review, on the other hand, seems a near parody.

0 Replies

Something else that was definitely NOT BOND was the heartstring-tugging relationship thing. James Bond is a rogue with the women, not a googly-eyed, lovestruck bore.

0 Replies

I think that the problem that some of you have was that you compared this James Bond film with the ones that came before it. I happened to have liked Casino Royale. The lack of gagetry, car chases, etc. took it out of the "cartoon" mode of its predecessors.

And I happened to have liked Bond's relationship with the leading lady. Years ago it was acceptable in a film to objectify women. Sorry fellas, it is no longer so. Women are no longer simply pretty objects put here on earth simply for a man's pleasure.

I happened to have loved Sean Connery's Bond. But he was from another time, another era.

To put it in a nutshell, this Bond was a far more modern 007, geared to today's sensibilities.

0 Replies

The truth is that they followed, in a general sort of way, the book by Ian Fleming, which was the first of the Bond books. Sadly, , though, they also tried to update it, always, I feel, to the film's detriment.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I think that the problem that some of you have was that you compared this James Bond film with the ones that came before it. I happened to have liked Casino Royale. The lack of gagetry, car chases, etc. took it out of the "cartoon" mode of its predecessors.

And I happened to have liked Bond's relationship with the leading lady. Years ago it was acceptable in a film to objectify women. Sorry fellas, it is no longer so. Women are no longer simply pretty objects put here on earth simply for a man's pleasure.

I happened to have loved Sean Connery's Bond. But he was from another time, another era.

To put it in a nutshell, this Bond was a far more modern 007, geared to today's sensibilities.

Bond was not meant to be a feminist. It's like rewriting Don Juan to be a bleeding heart.

0 Replies

Snood- I hear you. I think that if the part had been rewritten so that it were not a James Bond movie, but a movie about another soldier of fortune, people would not have the negative reactions about Casino Royale, which, IMO, was a pretty damned good movie.

People get used to their icons, and find it difficult to perceive James as anything other than the persona developed by Sean Connery.

1 Reply

I thought it wasn't good enough not to be cheeky.

I was bored.

0 Replies

You think Casino Royale was the worst film ever!? You have obviously never had to sit through "Ishtar" with Dustin Hoffman.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Snood- I hear you. I think that if the part had been rewritten so that it were not a James Bond movie, but a movie about another soldier of fortune, people would not have the negative reactions about Casino Royale, which, IMO, was a pretty damned good movie.

People get used to their icons, and find it difficult to perceive James as anything other than the persona developed by Sean Connery.

I agree there might not be as many negative reactions if the movie had been about some other secret agent.
But I don't think its just the Sean Connery Bond that got messed with here. I mean, the guy was driving a FORD!!

0 Replies

Snood wrote:

I agree there might not be as many negative reactions if the movie had been about some other secret agent.
But I don't think its just the Sean Connery Bond that got messed with here. I mean, the guy was driving a FORD!!

Well, a Ford would be more in keeping with the new Bond's more down to earth image. Then again, I wonder how much Ford paid the producers for them to use the auto in the film? :wink:

0 Replies

I have to agree with Phoenix on this one. It's the first Bond to really capture what Ian Fleming wrote since "From Russia With Love," also sparse on gadgets that began to take a featured spot in the subsequent films through Roger Moore's stint of stand-up-comic as Bond, although "Octopussy" was better storytelling than most of them. "A View to a Kill" is clearly the stupidest and worst of the lot, although I find myself watching it because of an addiction to the films. "Golden Eye" was the best of the new Bonds until this one. Watch "From Russia With Love" again and it makes this film make more sense. The return of the Aston Martin was the key they were going back to basics and followed the novel quite faithfully. I suspect that those who don't like this new film have never read Ian Fleming.

0 Replies

I agree with Phoenix and Lightwizard, I could hardly disagree more with the original post if I tried. It's almost like I watched a different film based on some of the comments! Laughing

I'm no expert on Bond or Ian Fleming's original works but wasn't the whole idea of this film to take us back to Bond's origins, when he was a bit more raw? With regards to the relationship in the film, I felt it was great, why was Connery's bond so detached from the women around him? I assumed it was because of the kind of experiences he had earlier in his career if you like, what happens between Bond the main girl clearly rocks him and hardens him, it was refreshing. See M's comments about the lessons he'll need to learn etc.

With regards to the gadgets though, while Jeremiah seems outraged with the defibrillator being the most advanced piece of kit in the film, I thought that moment was excellent and I'd personally make a much bigger deal about the car in the previous film which could turn invisible. Come on!

I really enjoyed it anyway.

0 Replies

I didnt really like it either.

Wait.. I saw a very positive review of the movie, and commented.. I can just paste what I wrote there.

Oh bugger, it was on TNR, and for some reason I cant get the TNR site to load here.

I'll be back..

0 Replies

Casino Royale Sucks, Worst Bond Movie Ever

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know