filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

totallyaparent This film is a mess, one unrelated scene spliced together in the editing room with another. One of the reason it's so chaotic is the amount of directors (5 overall) The directors had no contact with each other, yet somehow managed to produce a passable film. The film's production had problem after problem, so much problems that I wonder how it was finished.--PLOT-- David Niven is brought out of retirement due to the assassination of British secret agents, you may wonder why I didn't put James Bond in David Niven's place. The problem with that is that they're MORE THAN ONE. I won't spoil anything else. --- The film is passable due to the good aspects. The special effect are brilliant and still look quite realistic today. The casting is good. There are sometimes alright jokes. The music is absolutely brilliant and there are plenty of good scenes in the film. --- Casino Royale could of been better. If it had one director and it wasn't nearly 2 and a half hours. It's still worth a look though due to the effect, music and the pure fun of certain scenes.

atomicgirl-34996 I've been spending the last 20 years in vain trying to sit through all of Casino Royale and give it a fighting chance. Try as I might, I just can't, and this is coming from someone who sat through Manos: Hands of Fate and Plan 9 from Outer Space.Before I rip into it, let me say what's good about it. The cinematography, costume and sets are drop dead gorgeous and perfectly encapsulates the height of "swinging sixties" fashion and the look of movie musicals before cinematography adopted the ugly, dark, muddy look of the 1970s. The soundtrack, by Bacharach, is exemplary.Okay, with that out of the way, this is by far the worst of the so- called "zany" style of comedy that was so popular at the time. It's abysmal, even worse than What's New, Pussycat, even worse than Skidoo. The thing about those last two films is that even though they were bad, they were at least coherent and had some watchable scenes. Casino Royale is completely random from start to finish and so incoherent as to be unwatchable. It was like the movie was shot right after the writers scribbled notes on toilet paper during one of their brainstorming sessions. I'll give you an example of how incoherent it is. In the very first scene, James Bond is talking to M on the front lawn of his mansion when suddenly, the bad guys blow it up. Then M's toupee flies off in a stupid gag, showing that he's bald. But then in the next scene, Bond is going to M's widow to give her his toupee. So M's toupee hadn't just blown off in that first scene. He had also been killed. How? When? The movie never says. It jumps from that scene to the very next one when Bond is comforting M's widow. The entire film plays like this, as if key scenes connecting one scene to the next or explaining important plot points necessary to understanding the story were missing. What passes for comedy is just stupid, cheap, sick, sleazy or juvenile. The worst joke of the movie is when Bond gives M's grieving widow his toupee and she tells one of her daughters to put it with one of the other "hair-looms" (get it? huh? huh? hair-looms! because it sounds like...ah, never mind...). There is also a lot of stupid mugging for the camera, stupid accents, stupid everything.Another thing that's terrible about this movie is the sleaziness. I know that "hot babes" and spy films went hand in hand in the 1960s. However, the sexism was so extreme in this movie it made Matt Helm movies look enlightened by comparison. Case in point: James Bond is invited to take a bubble bath with one of M's hot daughters. So here you have this much older Niven taking a bath with this nubile young woman, who keeps touching him all over and acts like she's two seconds away from grabbing his junk. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is that she asked him to join her because he reminded her of her father, M, and she and her father would take bubble baths like this together all the time. It was like the writers were so hell-bent on having this sleazy scene that they didn't care that they were basically suggesting that there was an incestuous relationship between M and his daughter. A similar thing happens later when Bond meets Mata Hari's daughter and looks mesmerized as she dances practically naked in front of him. As it turns out, she is his daughter, too!Oh, it gets worse. Practically every woman is scantily clad; the ones who aren't are making out with the male characters or trying to sleep with them. In one scene, James Bond tells Moneypenny's daughter, "Your mother did her best work at night." Shortly afterward, we see her in a see-through teddy going down a long row of men in her bedroom, kissing them one by one to find a recruit for some stupid "AFSD" project.I'd forgive all of this sleaze if the movie was at least passable. But it's so, so bad on every level imaginable except for the visuals and music that it's just difficult to sit through. You may hear people try to convince you that it's some kind of cult classic or misunderstood film or has its charms or whatever, but please...I've seen my share of cheesy, bad films. Manos: Hands of Fate, The Oscar, A Bucket of Blood...they were bad but were fun to watch and had coherent story lines. This movie was a dog's dinner.

Myriam Nys There are many things wrong with this movie. The main one is the fact that the movie was made at all. Somewhere in the middle of the 1960's a number of directors and producers should have invited the various artists and collaborators to a meeting. Then they should have addressed their audience as follows : "Good people, we're giving up on the project. We've tried everything and anything : a plan A, a plan B, a plan C and even a plan D. However, nothing seems to work. So we're stopping activities as of today. Please be so kind as to go home. Mrs. Murchison from Accounting will pay you your fee, together with a hefty compensation for wasting your time and jeopardizing your fine reputation".Tragically, none of this happened and the result is the long, bloated, incoherent and pretentious mess known as "Casino Royale".It's deeply galling that the movie assembles so much talent and then goes on to spoil it with all the reckless abandon of a three-year old. Have you ever met one of those awful people who will elbow their way to the buffet, load their plates with the finest delicacies (salmon, truffles, crab meat, anything rare and expensive) and mix their food into a weird-looking heap ? And then they'll eat just a tiny, tiny spoonful ? Well, translate the process to the movie industry and you'll end up with this "Casino".Still, I've got to admit that the music is nice. And the line about Mata Hari's bed - "the German army was very large in these days" - can still make me laugh like a maniac.

Christian Jahnsen I always liked the Bond franchise and the way it changed throughout history. There is a great bit of difference between Dr. No and Skyfall. To say the least. However I decided to watch this "not genuine" Bond film to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Now I wish I had given this a miss. This film is an absolute disaster of a Bond film. David Niven is a wonderful gentleman and actor, but here the manuscript makes him a downright clown. Bond is not cool in any way in this film. He is a modest and easily surprised farcical character. The lines may have worked in the 60s, but in 2016, they are downright ridiculous. The special effects and stunts are non- existent - that is to say that even though they were limited in the 60s, the other Bond films from that decade show us that it can be done SO much better. The plot is a joke - at no point during this turd of a film did I feel the least bit excited or interested in what was happening next. They even (almost) manage to make the absolutely brilliant Peter Sellers appear indifferent and sad. Almost! Every other character in the film are downright unconvincing, regardless of how good an actor/actress they chose for the part. Don't waste two hours of your life on this. It is dire!