Crazy as it is, I still haven't seen this one... maybe tonight!

I thought this was one of the weakest Bond movies. It's slow, long, and I didn't find Daniel Craig that compelling as Bond. I actually liked The Holiday. It's long but it's a romantic comedy that's actually funny and not mean spirited like some of the recent ones can be. Since both movies are put out by Sony, they won't be complaining.

I kind of liked it. The opening action sequence had a Jackie Chan feel to it. The "villian" had a rather small role. I think this sets the foundation for some pretty good Bond movies.

I agree with the more realistic feal part except for the over the top foot chase at the beginning, after that I thought it was an awesome movie. I was worried about Daniel Craig after seeing his weasle like character in Road to Perdition, but he blew me away.

I also completely agree with the return to realism. My biggest complaint was the wackiness that grew and grew after Golden eye. Over the top crap killed the mid Roger movies and he made a comeback with For Your eyes only. That boat drag scene is still one of the most vivid in my memory for a Bond Movie. I was not concerned with Daniel Craig playing the roll after I saw Layer cake. I knew he could pull it off. (recommended film) As for the comment that Casino was slow, Go back to the early Connery films that are aften called the best. Dr.NO, From Russia, even gold finger all move pretty slow, yet these films truly established the "spy" feel. Lets not forget the guys actuall profession. He's not supposed to be some commando one man army. He's a spy, He's an assassin, He's an intelligence gathering & sabatoer. He's essentially at times a human monkey wrench versus terrorism. (invisible car, Blaah) I'll reserve for multiple viewings before I call this the best Bond film. My favorites have survived countless viewings. I havent purchased Casino yet due to my B-day in 4 days and I always have trouble thinking of things to ask for. But it is the only thing I've stated that I want. p.s. If you have to watch a chick flick, I agree with previous poster. The Holliday was one of the better ones since How to lose a man in 10 days. ( i think that was the name)

OK I really dont mean this rude but anyone who says this bond was weak or boring is the type of person who needs the hollywoodiized, bay'ish over the top, campy movies. I am all for that too because I enjoyed the previous bond films even with the major eye rolling during the viewing of them but this was the way Bond was intended to be. I am not going by "my opinion" but by comments from people who used to read the Bond novels. This bond with all the serious, gritty glory was closer to the books than the previous campy ones show on film. I am glad I like them in both forms but I just enjoy the realism a little more than the over the top garbage.

I really like Casino Royale from the beginning it really felt like Bond was back. I really liked the theme song for this movie because it had some of the elements of the early bond songs with all of the brass instruments. Craig had that same menacing feel that Connery had in the early Bond films. I do like the campiness of some of the Bonds, but I like the realistic approach just as much if not more because they camp just got out of control as the Brosnan movies went on. Don't get me wrong Pierce was a great Bond, but I think Craig has it in him to do the same if not more, in fact he may end up being second only to the man himself (Connery) when it is all said and done especially if they keep building off the story of the first one.

This wasn't a Bond movie, and that's a good thing. The old formula just wasn't working anymore and got worse in each progressive movie. This time around we got a spy movie with a protagonist named James Bond. We haven't had one of these since Thunderball.

KJ- The most successful Bond movie? Not Casino Royale! Thunderball, according to Box Office Mojo did what in todays dollars amounts to $492m and ranks 26th overall movies. Goldfinger did an adjusted $436m and ranks 39th. Both these movies were event movies of their time, with incredible attendance numbers and technically were more successful than the LOTR series movies individually. "Casino" isn't even in the top 100.

Craig will never rate as Bond- you can't re-write what Fleming did and make it be different and have it be okay. Craig's image is just wrong, what next, a short, fat, blond Superman? The image of Bond was cast in Dr. No and in the books. The producers have been screwin' this up since Godfinger and still haven't got it right. They are on the right path to a certain extent with getting back to basics with the writing, but casting Craig is so off the path it's ridiculous.