Casino Royale 2006 Review

[amp316]

Kantor said:
Whoa, that OP is messed up. How did you manage that?

I wasn't a fan of Casino Royale, precisely because of the things you named as being unimportant. Q is a great character, and the film suffered without him and his gadgets. Poker can be interesting to watch at a professional level, but an entire movie about poker can get a little bit monotonous. He killed, what, two people in that entire film? Now, I'm not one of those who believes that every movie needs excessive levels of violence, but it's James Bond, and James Bond films do.

Also, I don't much like Daniel Craig as an actor.

So all in all, I enjoyed it whilst I was watching it, I suppose, but afterwards I was thinking "what the hell did I just watch?"

Disclaimer: I like the Pierce Brosnan films. This probably invalidates my opinion, so I defer to your expertise, amp.

After I was done typing it up, the site said that I wasn't logged in which obviously I was...  Please don't lock this.

I never said that Q wasn't important (I like his character as well), but I don't think that ever Bond movie needs to go overboard with gadgetry.  This movie, On Her Majesy's Secret Service, and Dr. No are all good examples of that.  I think that you have to watch the movie again since he kills a lot more than two people in it.  He kills two people in the opening scene.

You're not the only one that likes Brosnan and you're entitled to you're entitled to opinion.  I just think that he is the farthest from the character that Ian Fleming wrote about.  He is the cinematic Bond, if you will.