„The Feel Bad Movie Of Christmas“ – Der Film also, der an Weihnachten Mads Mikkelsen Faces Other Side of Torture After 'Casino Royale'. Buy James Bond 01 - Casino Royale (German Edition): Read Kindle Store Reviews - stratosol.eu Casino royale james bond full movie online story of alexander - lsst. This is a Bond movie, and everything comes back to him and the actor who.
imdb casino royale review - assuredMy vote is eight. In fact, I think Giannini does amazing work here, many times stealing scenes from others, and going right there with Peter Cushing and Frank Finlay as one of the best Van Helsing's ever. Abraham Van Helsing the one who believes that Dracula can be defeated when he faces a strong will enpowered by faith. The important role of Jonathan deserved a better actor, but anyway, fans of vampire movies like me will not be disappointed with this version. Well, this is set in modern day environment, but it follows the book so accurately you just have to forgive it. You'd have a better time watching Zoltan: For someone who has only seen other "Dracula" movies, this one may seem slow and overstated.
The rest bulls through or stumbles along as one might expect from an American genre thriller of the time. The major plus factors here are the performances.
Most of the cast is miscast, but performs energetically despite that; Peter Lorre performs very weakly, but he happens to be perfectly cast - he is the definitive Le Chiffre!
That surprising discovery is reason enough to find this show and give it a view, at least for Bond aficionados. No" was the first time James Bond appeared on movie screens, it was actually this television adaptation that the character was first seen at all.
Bond is ordered to beat Le Chiffre so that his bosses would eliminate their own agent, causing great embarrassment to the organization.
The small cast works well together, even though the acting gets appropriately too theatrical at times for my taste. Michael Pate as Leiter is pretty solid and a believable ally, while Linda Christian is the only weak link in the chain.
JonTheGod 23 June This film is a bit of an oddity. A rare little gem, bringing James Bond to the screen for the first time. Peter Lorre - very good villain.
Making Bond a Yank. They made Felix Leiter a Brit and renamed him Clarence. The version I have is about an hour long, but there are rumours of a longer version which continues from where the other left off in which the villain returns from the dead to carry on the fight a bit more.
So, the first film about the famous British spy James Bond was not the "Dr. The first actor who played the was not Sean Connery.
First studio picture starring pro elegant mi6 agent is not Eon Productions. In , CBS director Gregory Ratoff Ian Fleming buys the film rights to the first novel of the famous series, in dollars, and the money at the time were not low.
After watching this television plays, 50 minutes long, I still have mixed feelings. Watch the first movie about the was my old dream, but I will not say that I am very pleased seen.
After all the action games that show recently, hardly somebody to watch the drama began 50 years ago, even the most about James Bond, except that loyal fans Bond as I am.
The role of the main character in this film takes Barry Nelson. On it remains ambiguous impression. Outwardly, he is not like any one of the actors performing the role of an agent later with two zeros in the official films.
Since it is hard to disagree - in appearance he is not like Bond, but as most of acting, then there is another matter.
Watch or not watch your work. I would recommend this movie for those who enjoys watching a film about the legendary spy.
And if you look James Bond films only when nothing else to watch on TV, then you should refrain from watching this movie, and then you just go bad impression about the !
The low budget both helps the movie and hinders it: The short run time is also a mixed bag: If he would have been more familiar with the character and not been doing a Humphrey Bogart impersonation, he might have been good.
Maybe if it would have had a longer running time, and if the censors would have allowed it, they could have fleshed out some of these omitted story elements?
He is tasked with cleaning out communist agent Le Chiffre Peter Lorre, "Casablanca" in a game of baccarat. He plans to stake everything on one card game at Casino Royale in France.
This early Bond film is markedly different from the later MGM series, and criticisms of it arise mainly from comparisons with the wildly popular franchise.
To many, Sean Connery was the only Bond, and later actors were only replacements. Nelson plays Bond like a hard-boiled private eye.
He talks with a stiff upper lip and drinks water instead of vodka martinis shaken-not-stirred. Peter Lorre, however, is spot-on as the villain.
Even though he is a small man, he radiates an erratic intensity that makes him menacing. Since this version of "Casino Royale" was made for live TV, there are also mistakes as a result of not having multiple takes to get it right.
Even allowing for the fact that this was a product if early live TV, this "adaptation" of the Fleming novel is quite dreadful.
There were a lot of truly great, even legendary, productions for early live TV. The principal problem with this episode is the casting of Barry Nelson as Bond -- and changing Bond to an American.
Nelson completely fails to bring Bond to life. He totally lacks the charisma and dangerousness of James Bond. There is also zero chemistry between Nelson and Linda Christian, the supposed "love interest.
The second fatal flaw in this production is that it completely fails to develop any real believable tension or sense of something important being at risk.
The pacing is pretty plodding throughout. Some of the weakness of this production is in being forced to condense the story into 50 minutes.
There is zero room for character development. So, this production is of historical interest as the first filmed adaptation of a James Bond story, but not of much interest otherwise.
It was the first time we heard the distinctive opening theme music It was the first time we saw him order The first time we heard a woman moan: To see the man, okay, played by Norwegian-American Barry Nelson, offer a casual quip after a brush with death, tuxedo unruffled, will stir the heart of any true Bondophile.
Bond Nelson is on the case for Combined Intelligence. To do so, he needs to beat Le Chiffre at baccarat, and not lose his head in the process when his old flame Valerie Mathis Linda Christian is threatened with death.
A pasty, bloated Lorre stumbles over many of his lines. Nelson crams his shoulder into a lampshade. Someone can be overheard coughing behind the camera during a tense interrogation scene.
Nelson, an amiably solid journeyman actor, comports himself well under the circumstances. Lorre, oddly, is the weak sister in this acting trio, but despite some obvious discomfort he does use his famous screen presence to some good effect, especially in a card-table sequence which is the best part of this short movie where he smirks and glowers to cold effect.
The producers of "Climax! But they do get much of the nub of the story, not a bad feat considering the time limit and production code. The movie I saw ran just 48 minutes.
Apparently there was more to the ending that I missed, though it seemed to have run its course well enough. The last line in my version has Bond saying "Call the police".
Despite or because of such incongruities, "Casino Royale" is a fascinating glimpse at giving birth to a s icon a decade too soon.
As a spy story, it only works in fits and starts, but what matters is its place as the somewhat-neglected beginning of a screen legend.
You may know the man and you may know the story, but have you ever seen the first ever James Bond motion picture? Technically, this hour-long made-for-TV feature is the first time Bond was adapted for a medium outside of the original novels.
Maybe it was exciting TV back in , but after the onslaught of bigger and more prolific James Bond pictures, this little feature has not aged well at all.
At its core, the film uses a very simple structure: None of that carries through in this version. There are many small changes and a lot of huge cuts to the story, which trims this whole affair down to something barebones, shallow, and flimsy.
Among the various changes, James Bond is made into an American dude named Jimmy, Felix is renamed to Clarence for some reason, Vesper Lynd is nowhere to be seen, and is replaced by a female Mathis.
Worst of all, none of these people have any ounce of presence or charisma. Filming and editing are straightforward, if not rather bland.
Acting is a hit and a miss; Barry Nelson is easily the worst actor to play Bond in the history of Bond, but he does have a few unintentionally funny lines.
Peter Lorre, on the other hand, is effective as Le Chiffre. Nobody else really stands out much. This production uses simple sets, props, and costumes.
Music adds little to the experience. Theo Robertson 11 July We all know Bond is the most successful film franchise in history and we all recognise the icons , the babes , the exotic locations , the gadgets , the big set piece stunts etc of a franchise featuring a very British fictional hero.
Now imagine a James Bond story without any of these icons. Worse than that imagine if he was an American character? Surviving a murder attempt in the opening scene a policeman refers to it by stating: In comparison you can see why Bond became an instant legend in the s with the exotic location filming and the sexy and charismatic Sean Connery playing the role with a hard edge.
An old black and white TV show of marginal quality, but significant in one respect. We even learn how to play Baccarat.
If you thought that the first screen Bond outing was Dr. Coming the better part of a decade before Dr. No was made and Goldfinger firmly established the image of Bond in the public consciousness, Bond came first to American television screens.
Despite the films that followed, it remains interesting viewing. Despite being merely an hour in length, the script Anthony Ellis and Charles Bennett is a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the original novel.
The central plot of the novel, of Bond going to a French casino to bankrupt Le Chiffre at the baccarat tables and thus ensure his death at the hands of his Soviet paymasters, is front and center here.
Even when incidents from the novel are difficult to do on screen to network censors and the limitations of live television production, versions of them still appear.
Where it is less faithful is in its casting. Perhaps the most notable change, and the one most likely to hanker fans of both the novels and the later films, was the decision to make Bond an American in a move that seems to have been made to pander to the American audience who would hopefully tune in.
Other members of the cast work better. Christian does an admirable job bringing the first Bond Girl to life as a character though the adaptation not only combines the characters together but also gives them a past relationship that echoes Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca made a dozen years before.
Another departure from the novel, and an interesting reversal of what was done with the Bond character, is the casting of the Australian actor Michael Pate in the role of British agent Clarence Leiter who takes the place of CIA agent Felix Leiter.
Pate does an admirable job though the friendship between this particular Leiter and Bond seems a bit forced, especially in the opening minutes of the production.
The most notable member of the Casino Royale cast though would be its villain. For Bond fans, the Casino Royale makes for interesting viewing.
Coming nearly a decade before the Eon films that have now firmly rooted the character for most people, it is a fascinating look at bringing Bond to the screen.
You need to know this first: This Bond movie was VERY fortunately placed on TV, because as a regular theater release it would have absolutely killed the entire Bond franchise, no questions asked ever after.
We would have never enjoyed the funny, tongue in cheek, and very stylish Bond movies we got to know with Connery and Moore in the lead, if this had been in theaters, instead of TV, which nobody took serious back then!
The acting of the main "Bond" character was lousy. No, it was worse than lousy, and the thing that makes Bond special, his British manners and tongue, were completely butchered by the urge to do it the "American Way".
No style, no finesse. At last we have another true Bond.. Sharp, sophisticated and as tough as nails And perhaps correctly more shaken than stirred.
In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. Or would we really rather have 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"?
Well, the votes are still being tallied on that. As someone who came to Bond reading "Goldfinger" at the tender age of twelve the phrase "round, firm, pointed breasts" has been an inspiration to me since , the closer the films came to the sense of the novels, the happier I was.
So of course, this version of Bond is a joyous surprise for me - my youthful daydreams have been vindicated and at last fully satisfied. There are indeed elements added to the plot, but they are completely congruent with it.
There is the use of current technology, but no techno-schtick - i. There are the luscious Bond babes 2 - the minimum Bond requirement , but there is no attempt to reduce them to photogenic sex-toys.
But he does it extremely well. Given the romantic plot twist toward the end, this would be a perfect date movie - except that the violence left some of the female viewers in the theater I attended clearly unsettled.
Some of the stunt work is truly remarkable, worthy competition for Jackie Chan. The acting is rock-solid and believable for these characters.
There is plenty of muscle for the action-film fan, and some real brains for the more general viewer to ponder later.
This film is best viewed with minimal reliance on knowledge of the previous series. But of course, the ending invites a sequel. It is probably too much to hope for, but maybe they can make the sequels just as good as this.
As a genre film it never quite lifts above its genre; so normally I would only give it "nine stars" as a film. However, as a film within its genre, it is top-of-the-line - so it gets a ten.
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???
Sorry, what car chase? Bond goes around a couple of curves and unintentionally when was the last time Bond unintentionally?
Yes he is a great actor, just watch his facial expression before the stunt man breaks the world record in "car flipping".
Editing of the poker games in the casino is just amateurish. Cutting the fight scene in half to add a dialog from different surroundings just for the viewer to find out that "Mr.
Bond has changed his shirt" is called home made editing. Making the movie about the beginnings of James Bond earning his "00" status? You start with a black and white scene which really gives you an impression about the times before it all started.
You pick a 38 year old actor who looks "used". You give him no gadgets. Except latest satellite navigation telephones and a high tech heart defibrillator which is a standard accessory of his latest model Aston Martin by the way Mrs.
Broccoli did you really think that invisible car previously was unrealistic? Now you have a top spy so you give him an anti terrorist mission.
His task is to recover a mere million. Can someone add this up for me? In conclusion this film is an average movie without any pace or plot, with no new action no leading actor or actress in that matter, no plot and no meaning at all.
Ever notice how the screenplays, casting, and creative direction of the films produced after "Goldeneye" seem to get worse and worse in terms of art and entertainment values?
With "Casino Royale," the franchise hits rock bottom. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper "I have no idea what an honest job is.
White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at "grown-up.
Her "M" is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench.
Big, Max Zorin, Janus, et al. Both in content and tone, the screenplay—like the novel—overwhelmingly projects malevolence: And notice how the script flagrantly undercuts James Bond, the ultimate fictional egoist, with the inclusion of damning "anti-ego" lines thrown at him by M and Vesper.
The dialogue is cynical, tasteless, and witless. Instead, they bring back to the beginning of his secret service career--in his most unflattering incarnation yet.
The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgustingly vulnerable "hero. Considering all these points, it is clear that "Casino Royale" is neither value-driven art nor uplifting entertainment.
The proof is in the picture. Yet "Casino Royale" is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment.
The worst Bond film of all time! I was going to wait until a second viewing of CASINO ROYALE before writing a comment for it since my opinion on a film occasionally does change the second time around, but I am absolutely stunned at the positive rating of the picture so I feel I must get my two cents out while my grips are fresh in my mind.
Since there are so many of them, the following will read more as a complaint this than a coherent review, which is appropriate since coherency is definitely not something that CASINO ROYAL has, surprising given the ridiculous two and a half hour running time.But why does this belong in the picture? Ridiculous, but not funny. But, all the psychedelic stuff, crammed into the tail end of this, is very outdated and useful only if the viewer has smoked a lot of weed. See it early and often as it is weg des champions not to diminish upon reviewing. The opening immediately warns you that this is not "classic" Bond. The casino sequences are the majority of the movie. Christian does an admirable job bringing the first Bond Girl to life as 2 way winner casino game character though the adaptation not only combines the characters together but also gives them a past relationship that echoes Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca made a dozen years before. Opening with a gritty, short gary anderson peter wright violent pre-credit sequence, the film moves through a cool title sequence with a typically Bondian if only so-so theme song. Sat beside Die Pacman serie Day, it is a wonderfully dark and brooding Bond with great action replacing some of the CGI and gadget excesses of recent times. Casino Royale 5. It is probably too much to hope for, but maybe they can make bayern neapel sequels just as good as this. He conquered us from the word go.