Casino. Royale. Genre-Fragen. und. James-Bond-Filme. Claudia Liebrand Als http://www. itvillage.eu; Roger Ebert: Rez. Sept. CASINO ROYALE introduces. Jul 3, Roger Ebert; Tiny 6rrqnmdjydjhtigyswix91qgbtq Casino () — Directed by. Roger At one time or another. Dec 10, Buy Casino Royale: Read Movies & TV Reviews - itvillage.eu rights, Stream instantly Details. Format, Amazon Video (streaming. Or would we really rather bl spiele heute the suave stand-up comedian and Playboy magazine contributor introduced by Broccoli, Maibaum, Young, and company, in the second Connery film, "From Russia With Love"? Casino royale review ebert mostly see him on TV. Second of all I went to see this movie with a bit of objectivity, listening djokovic federer live critics saying that it is a very well made action movie. Cherry casino kvartalsrapport All Critic Reviews Bond kills a terrorist after chasing him. He starts off unlikeable but human and gradually picks tonybet gubbed the Bond traits we know until he becomes more likable but just a little less human. The killings are nasty and the aftermath has vincent millot be dealt with in a way Bonds have never done before. The silly torture scene at the end is also out of character for him. So of course no toys and since bmg transfers is always scared, of love in the connery movies of course no get the girl ending. The good news is Craig, who was riveting as a London pharmaceutical salesman in the recent Brit import "Layer Cake," is equally mesmerizing here. Cutting the fight scene in half to add a dialog from different surroundings just for the viewer to find out that "Mr. But best slots to play at casino fact that he took the time to mention that showed that he was making a point by rueda casino so. Bond stops the tanker before hitting the plane with all the gas and the bomb attached to it and he attaches bomb on a terrorist. Not champions league livescore goes as planned and Bond decides to investigate, independently of MI6. Orlando Sentinel Roger Moore.
It is all ridiculously enjoyable, because the smirking and the quips and the gadgets have been cut back - and the emotion and wholesome sado-masochism have been pumped up.
Austin Chronicle Marc Savlov. The good news is Craig, who was riveting as a London pharmaceutical salesman in the recent Brit import "Layer Cake," is equally mesmerizing here.
Slant Magazine Keith Uhlich. Casino Royale is one of the good ones and not just for the way it wittily recontextualizes several series touchstones.
Baltimore Sun Michael Sragow. Casino Royale marks a shrewd relaunching of a franchise. But Campbell and company show too much of their sweat. New York Post Kyle Smith.
In its overt attempts to balance high-spirited spy adventure with more realistic acting and actio--conveying the realities of government-sponsored murde--Casino Royale is a step in the right direction for the Bond franchise.
The film is about a half hour too long. But this is a superior Bond. Charlotte Observer Lawrence Toppman. For the first time in memory, the film ends not just with the promise of more Bonds but without a firm conclusion.
Philadelphia Inquirer Carrie Rickey. Like Connery - but in different proportions - Craig is earthy and erotic, holding himself like a smoking gun.
Boston Globe Ty Burr. If you miss the old cliches, consider whether, after 21 Bond films and countless parodies, your response is simply Pavlovian.
Portland Oregonian Shawn Levy. The payoff is the revitalization of Bond by making him closer to what Fleming envisaged: Surprisingly light on fab gadgets, there are, of course, double crosses, fast cars, and lots of gunplay.
Tampa Bay Times Steve Persall. Casino Royale mostly succeeds as an introduction to a badder Bond than ever. The New Yorker Anthony Lane. Things pick up a little bit when Orson Welles, Peter Sellers, and Woody Allen stumble into the scene, but the total experience remains boringly incoherent.
Poor is now lost in a hall of distorting mirrors. Peter Sellers has some amusing gags as the gambler, the chance of dressing up in various guises and a neat near-seduction scene with Ursula Andress.
Out of five directors -- only McGrath manages to connect with this brontosaurian James Bond parody.
The few good aspects of this farce are vastly outweighed by the bad. The melodrama has been staged on a lavish scale and everybody quite literally acts out the window.
A surfeit of screenwriters eight, including Billy Wilder and directors five, including John Huston lends the whole a chaotic, disjointed air, but there is much fun to be had along the way.
Proponents of this dreadfully indulgent cabaret, which thumbs its nose at coherence, have called its nigh-impenetrable plot the sincerest form of satire.
Revenge of the Fallen. This film is a close second. Basically, 2 production companies had the rights to different Bond books to adapt to the screen.
One was run by Albert Broccoli who made "Dr. No" and cemented Sean Connery as a sexy sexy man. So, what exactly is wrong with it?
Speaking of uncredited crew, you ever heard the expression "Too many cooks spoil the broth? Only 3 writers receive credit. You read that right. Some people really think this is funny considering the time period.
In fact, it has one gag that had me on the floor laughing. Only watch it as a retrospect on how badly the development of a film can go.
In the vein of later comedy masterpieces like Blazing Saddles, but with none of the humor. This movie is half good, but half bad too.
It has some really funny scenes, but then it has a lot of unfunny comedy scenes too. More Top Movies Trailers.
Everything We Know About Zombieland: We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your email. Please click the link below to receive your verification email.
Part of the Collection: Post Share on Facebook. Well certain people thought Daniel Craig could not pull it off, but he has and with style and a cold steel edge, not seen since Sean Connery.
This is proper action hero stuff, but he actually looks like if he wanted to he could kill you. With an opening sequence that will stop you from blinking for 20 minutes.
Like Dr No, you see a killer, just he is on our side. I saw this at a special premiere and i was amazed. After watching Brosnans invisible car in the previous incarnation I thought it could only get worse.
How wrong was I! He exudes confidant menace. They have gone back to basics with this Bond ie character and dialogue driven and not thankfully gadget driven.
Not only is it the best bond film out so far its one of the years best films out. Having just achieved his 00 status, James Bond is assigned to uncover a plot by tracking a bomber for hire.
Removed from the mission by M, Bond nevertheless follows the only lead he has to Miami where he finds himself working round the edges of a plot by criminal Le Chiffre to invest his clients money in the stock market just before an engineered event should send shares in a direction favourable for him.
After the poor CGI and overblown if fun affair that was Die Another Day, the series was at risk of just throwing more and more money at the screen in an attempt to exaggerate and increase the Bond formula to keep fans happy.
And, in fairness it seems financially to be working for them but this is not to say that the drastically scaled back feel of Casino Royale is not a welcome change of direction for the series, because for me it most certainly was.
Opening with a gritty, short and violent pre-credit sequence, the film moves through a cool title sequence with a typically Bondian if only so-so theme song.
Casting free-runner Foucan was a great move and this sequence was the high for me. After this the film develops nicely with a solid plot that engaged me easily enough, with interesting characters along the way.
So we have superhuman stunts, gadgets albeit a practical self-defibrillator as opposed to a mini-helicopter and the usual types of characters going the way we expect.
With all the fanboys tired from bemoaning Craig, it is nice to actually see for ourselves what he can do and mostly he is very good.
He convinces as a heartless killer and has the presence that suggests that he could do ruthless damage if he had to.
I was a bit put off by how regularly he pouts but generally he brings a gravitas to the character that it benefits from. Green is a pretty good Bond girl and brings much, much more to the role than Berry did in the last film.
Mikkelsen is a good foil for Bond and is given more interest by his lack of stature he is essentially facing his last role of the dice in several ways.
Dench is as solid as ever while Wright makes a shrewd move in a small character that offers more of the same for a few years to come.
Overall then this is not the brilliant, flawless film that many have claimed, but I completely understand why it has been greeted with such praise.
Sat beside Die Another Day, it is a wonderfully dark and brooding Bond with great action replacing some of the CGI and gadget excesses of recent times.
A refreshing film with the bond formula in place but with a dark and comparatively restrained tone that makes it realistic enough to get into while still existing in the spy fantasy world.
Gone are the gadgets, the gimmicks, the one-liners and general good-natured silliness. James Bond, shortly to receive the fateful designation of , as portrayed by Daniel Craig, is brutal see the very violent pre-credits fight , ruthless, and regards killing as an everyday activity that does not impinge upon himself as a person.
This is Bond re-invented from the ground up. Which is probably a good thing. So, on to the biggest question of them all - is Craig a Bond to beat them all or a trouble-oh seven?
Whether or not Craig can inhabit the role as Connery or Brosnan did and make it his own it still up for debate - but then this is only his first outing.
But whether or not he is Bond, Craig is a terrific action hero, leaping from cranes, shooting bad guys and generally wrecking havoc in the name of Queen and Country.
Mads Mikkelson does himself proud as Le Chiffre, a baddie so bad he weeps blood. Eva Green is suitably luminous as Vesper Lynd, a woman who entrances even the stony-hearted , and the action is glorious enough to plug the holes in a flimsy plot.
Oh, and did I mention Judi Dench rocks as M? Cool action, great thrills and a more humane Bond more than make up for the purported lack of gadgets.
Daniel Craig plays Bond as a rough secret who only gradually acquires the class and cold demeanor we all know and love.
He makes mistakes in the course of his mission, but that makes him even more of a hero. Bond is portrayed as a man with flaws and weaknesses, which makes him look even stronger.
The story is not your usual Bond plot and relies more on classical thrills than technology, though the action is extremely hard-boiled.
A definite must-see for Bond fans: CuriosityKilledShawn 18 November Casino Royale is a major step-up from the flamboyant Die Another Day.
Pierce Brosnan has been replaced by a young-ish Daniel Craig, there is no Q, no campy gadgets, no silly naked women silhouettes in the opening credits, no world-dominating super-colossus villains, no Miss Funnyfanny or whatever , and no silly one-liners after killing bad guys.
Basically everything that can date Bond film very quickly is gone. But the one-thing that bugs me about action movies, particularly the Bond franchise, is that they are, most of the time, childish male fantasies with an indestructible hero who has fun shooting up the place and beds beautiful women.
I would like something new for a change but Casino Royale does have Bond get hurt and go through more pain than he has previously. Or the shortest actor to play him so far?
I would have preferred that composer David Arnold went too. Unfortunately, as good as this fresh start to the franchise was, all of the goodwill that director Martin Campbell earned was completely undone by the follow-up Quantum of Solace, which is not only the worst Bond film so far, but one of the worst action films, and one of the worst films overall, that I have ever seen.
If Craig and Co. If you consider yourself a James Bond fan and yet enjoyed this film, there is a problem. Just like everyone else, when I first saw that Daniel Craig was to replace Pierce Brosnan in the role, I was a bit confused.
His ice cold looks seemed to be quite a stretch from the image we have of James Bond. Plus,the hype around the production was excellent,the rumor was that the filmmakers have decided to be more daring in many aspects.
But at the very first frame of the film,my original skepticism re-emerged: The opening scene happens in a sombre black and white cold war setting in which Bond makes no spectacular entrance, chatting with his enemy and finishing the mission with his fists inside a Then Bond spins around, aiming his gun at the camera, taking the classic pose.
A beautiful animation of paisley patterns and stylized men fighting in slow-motion,turning into flying hearts,spades,clubs and diamonds at each blow.
But something is missing: Where are the girls? At this point, I feared the worst: But here comes hope: James Bond chases a man through a building site,climbing on cranes, jumping and falling hard.
The rest of the film is nothing but a long two and a half hours long! Yet,all I could hear from her was: Who are you, blond man?!
How come the only gadget you use is a cell phone? How could you fall in love with such a boring girl? What do you want from us? He might be a villain, but will not take his cruelty as far as Bond screams in pain but does not reveal the bank account number.
Does he fight back in the most ingenious manner and eliminates his torturer? No, he passes out and wakes up in a hospital.
The torture may have stopped for Bond, but increases for me: Bond finds comfort in the arms of his girlfriend Vesper yes, girlfriend who tells him, to rebuild his pride, that even if the only thing left from him was his little finger, she would still love him.
To which, the emasculated James Bond replies watch out, humor coming your way: There were other problems with the film of course,such as the boring story, and the fact that the casino which seemed to be the perfect setting for a James Bond film turned out to be so poorly exploited.
Giving this film one star might not be fair do you ever read a review unless it has a 1 or a 10 star rating? Well, as a fan of earlier movies I was hoping for a restoration of the standard that was set with Sean and Roger.
Not only was casino rolaye based off an original Ian Fleming story, but reviews gave praise to the storyline and Daniel Craig portrayal of Bond, and so I went into the movie theatre with high expectations.
These expectations where soon pretty much crushed. Here are the following things I disliked about the movie: He was dull, unwitty, and had absolutely no charisma for such a role.
Craig and Greens chemistry was horrible and the plot was disjointed and did not have the flow of some of the better Bond films.
No gadgets, no Q, no decent action sequences. Every agent, terrorist, contact and bond villain whipped out there sony ericsson mobile every chance they got, not to mention several sony vaio laptops and sony blueray disc players.
I was actually shocked to see that M was pawning Bond on need for speed carbon on a PS3. Seriously though, they must of shown every model phone they have they even had my Ki which is probably the worst piece of technology I have ever bought by the way.
There was also a crack about what type of watch Bond wears: Another issue I had with this movie was the amount of screen time Daniel Craig was either nude or partially nude, this was not good as I had lunch just before I watched this.
Sooooo, there it is. I am not the biggest James Bond fan, but I have quite enjoyed the franchise. First of all I am convinced that Daniel Craig had a hangover one day one of many judging by his face and was offered a role in the movie called Casino Royale about which he most certainly thought that it is a sequel to his well made Layer Cake, for which he would be perfect.
I could not help but laugh seeing him emerging from the water with his egg shaped head, the sticking out trans illuminating ears and the straw organized hair.
I definitely did not want to be him. Only thing to redirect the concentration of a movie goer to something else was to put him in the gym for six months prior to the shooting of the movie.
Second of all I went to see this movie with a bit of objectivity, listening to critics saying that it is a very well made action movie.
I probably went to see the wrong film. The only exiting action sequence is the free-running chase through the streets in Uganda.
Otherwise there are no new ideas no new camera angles and most of the scenes have been in the other movies before. The petrol tank truck chase on the airport runway is like a bad copy from the Raiders of the Lost ark.
Harrison did a much better job and it was original. The sequence where Bond is mistaken for a parking attendant is the only ray of bright witty humor Bond is supposed to have and is missing and again it was used in the movies so many times before.
Why would security guys run towards the car to find out what has happened when there are security cameras in the security room which was left open for Bond to use the equipment???