Casino Royale [Blu-ray]

I think most people was caught up with the whole "Bond" thing, new actor, etc. and didn't notice some real big "faux pas". Although there has never been real dates set, and you can't just deal with the making of the first Bond movie (Dr. No), there were events that gave you an opportunity to know approximately what decade if nothing else you were in. This Bond, which is supposed to depict the "beginning" for James, has several references to things that happened more recently than the older Bond movies indicated but mostly, has M making the biggest mistake in her speech when she speaks of "9/11". Please, didn't anyone hear that?
I don't usually notice mistakes on the part of the writers, wardrobe people, set designers or actors when I see a movie for the first time (unless it is sooooo bad)because I am intent on the movie and sometimes I never pick up anything unless it is pointed out to me, but this was so blatant that when I heard it my mouth dropped open. C'mon folks, don't tell me that you can actually put that reference in the beginning of the James Bond '007 saga?
S from NY

I am still partial to the Sean Connery version of James Bond, although maybe some of the dialogue remarks were a bit too glib. This bond is tougher. More amoral and detached. It is much more updated to modern action film stereotype, but still pretty well put together and there is some semblance of character development.

I am not sorry I bought this video, but I have to admit it won't get as much play time as say "The Third Man" or "Michael Clayton" or "Day of the Jackal" or "Mancurian Candidate" or "Gorky Park" or some other suspense type films.

Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery. At first I was like but he doesn't look like a Bond. Well In the first five seconds I forgot all about that. He does a fantastic job playing the role. This is Bond's first mission and he plays the part perfectly. Bond loves, hates, and wants revenge. Something we have never seen Bond do, and i don't think anybody could have done it better. The story and everything about this movie is great. Stop reading this and go watch it.

Maybe it is the fact that this was the first movie I have seen on Blu-Ray or the fact this is a Bond film with a new Bond, but I loved it. The action sequences were awesome, they went back to Bond being a spy instead of relying on far fetched gadgetry. Daniel Craig played the part well having the quick wit and the confidence needed to play the part.

On Blu-Ray this movie was amazing. The sound was extraordinary and the visuals something to behold. The details were crisp and there basically no artifacts or broken screens throughout the film.

The only part about the movie I didn't like was for a spy Bond blew up a lot of things, and seemed to take to violence rather than stealth. Oh well. That's Hollywood nowadays!

Can't wait for the next one.

If the Star Wars prequels showed us anything its that going back to making a prequel to a old movie is a BAD idea, and this film is NO exception. This Bond is supposed to be set pre Dr. No, yet there are:

1) cell phones, technology that did not exist then
2) laptops, again that did not exist back then (especially not a Sony VAIO which was shamelessly marketed)
3) Very elaborate tracking system, much more sophisticated than a radioisotope tracker used in Dr. No
4) Modern weapons
5) Texas Hold em, not Baccarat

Just to mention a few. Sure the acting may be great in parts, like the torture scene, but the whole movie just feels drawn out like they couldn't stop. Kids and first time Bonders will probably like this, but for thoes of us who have seen every Bond movie from Dr. No to Die Another Day (including Never Say Never Again), it is a movie that should never have been made, which is why they made Dr. No first and not Casino Royale.