I'm guessing a lot of people will be seeing
Casino Royale before the weekend, so I might as well post the critics reviews article now. As we all know by now,
Daniel Craig is the sixth actor to play James Bond, in what is probably the most controversial James Bond movie ever (general outrage at casting, a franchise re-boot, no Q or gadgets, etc.) But controversial doesn't neccesarily mean bad....
"Casino Royale is a 1,000 watt jolt to the heart of a flagging franchise, bringing Bond kicking -- and frequently screaming -- back to life". - Paul Arendt - BBC
"Successfully relaunches James Bond with tension-filled high stakes poker games ... and jaw-dropping action scenes that have to be seen to be believed". - Edward Douglas - Comingsoon.net
"Daniel Craig has done more with James Bond in one film than some previous stars have in multiple reprises. This is terrific stuff, again positioning 007 as the action franchise to beat". - Kim Newman - Empire
"There's one whopper of a reason why Casino Royale is the hippest, highest-octane Bond film in ages, and his name is Daniel Craig". - Peter Travers - Rolling Stone
"This is a Bond with great body but no soul" - Richard Corliss - Time Magazine Casino Royale is currently scoring 95% fresh rating on
Rotten Tomatoes, with only one review out of 20 being negative. Daniel Craig is being universally praised for his hard-edged and tough Bond but I still think it's a hard sell for the movie going audience. Lazenby and Dalton both failed in that direction, I really hope they haven't taken the "fun" element away. The only slight niggle that many of the reviewers are bringing up is the length of the movie and many claim that it drains somewhat in the third act. Are the reviewers just so happy that it's not another
Die Another Day, or is Casino Royale the real deal? I suspect we will all find out for ourselves soon enough, the movie is released in the UK tommorow then worldwide on Friday. source -
rotten tomatoes