Rotten Tomatoes Casino Royale Navigationsmenü
Jürgen Tarrach. Highest Rated: 95% Casino Royale (). Lowest Rated: 57% Alone in Berlin (). Birthday: Not Available. Birthplace: Not Available. Mit den Golden Tomato Awards ehrt die amerikanische Kritikerwebsite Rotten Tomatoes seit , James Bond Casino Royale · Die Queen. Der Spielfilm Casino Royale aus dem Jahr ist eine Parodie auf die bis dahin Casino Royale bei Rotten Tomatoes (englisch)Vorlage:Rotten. Daniel Craig James Bond, Casino Royale, Kino, Rachel Weisz, Künstler, Fotos hot pictures, movie images of Daniel Craig and more from Rotten Tomatoes'. einer Terrororganisation, hat sich verkalkuliert und will sich die verlorenen Millionen im Rahmen des illustren Pokerturniers „Casino Royale" zurückholen.
Daniel Craig James Bond, Casino Royale, Kino, Rachel Weisz, Künstler, Fotos hot pictures, movie images of Daniel Craig and more from Rotten Tomatoes'. I fell in love with it. Inception - Rotten Tomatoes. Mit dem James Bond Film Casino Royale gab Daniel Craig als neuer sein Debüt. Der. Bond FilmeFilme. Im großen und ganzen ein gelungenger und Fortsetzung einer Tetralogie der Filme Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace und Skyfall. Der Film selbst hat.
Daliah Lavi as The Detainer. Charles Boyer as Le Grand. John Huston as McTarry. Kurt Kasznar as Smernov. George Raft as Himself. Jean-Paul Belmondo as French Legionnaire.
Terence Cooper as Cooper. Barbara Bouchet as Moneypenny. Peter O'Toole as Scotch Piper. Angela Scoular as Buttercup. Gabriella Licudi as Eliza.
Tracey Crisp as Heather. Anna Quayle as Frau Hoffner. Richard Wattis as British Army Officer. Ronnie Corbett as Polo.
Bernard Cribbins as Taxi Driver. Duncan Macrae as Inspector Mathis. Colin Gordon as Casino Director. Graham Stark as Cashier.
Tracy Reed as Fang Leader. Jacqueline Bisset as Miss Goodthighs. Percy Herbert as First Piper. Derek Nimmo as Hadley.
Duncan as 1st Piper. Alexandra Bastedo as Meg. John Bluthal as Casino Doorman. Chic Murray as Chic. Vladek Sheybal as Le Chiffre's Representative. Jeanne Roland as Captain of the Gurads.
John Le Mesurier as Driver uncredited. Elaine Taylor as Peg. March 30, Full Review…. October 13, Full Review….
July 22, Full Review…. August 15, Full Review…. July 7, Full Review…. January 29, Full Review…. December 30, Full Review…. November 11, Rating: 1. View All Critic Reviews Aug 03, When we hear the word spoof film we all know it's going to be pretty bad but there's bad then there's this monstrosity, The film starts slow bringing James Bond out of retirement and then another hour recruiting agents with some unfunny humour thrown in doesn't help, We could deal with that then it felt like the directors couldn't decide how the film could end so they just went mad and it was so stupid I was counting down the seconds to turn it off, And then Woody Allen is cast as the mastermind, I felt like hanging myself I cant stand the bloke and when he's in a terrible film Jamie C Super Reviewer.
Mar 04, On oublie touit du James Bond qu'on connait maintenant. Sep 12, Wow, it took them four films before they finally got around to adapting what was the first installment in the "" novel series, and this film isn't even an official member of the "" film series, or at least not as far as EON Productions is concerned.
Well, seeing as how this film boasts an ensemble team of skilled directors - one of whom is John Huston - and performers, - one of whom is Orson Welles - I suppose you could that this film was worth the wait, though I wouldn't particularly recommend that you say that, seeing as how this is anything but the serious piece you would expect it to be, considering the names attached.
Oh yeah, you've got Peter Sellers, whose only other espionage-esque role was Chief Inspector Clouseau, so this clearly has to be hardcore serious.
Speaking of serious, "seriously" though, if you was a "seriously" "serious" film take on James Bond's debut, then go out and check out the one with Daniel Craig Boy, I tell you what, James Bond may make for a pretty good series and a really good spy, but he's anything but the most organized spy in the film industry, or at least just when it comes to organizing the order of film adaptations, because "Live and Let Die" was the second book and eight EON film, "Moonraker" was the third book and eleventh EON film, "Diamonds Are Forver" was the fourth book and sixth EON film, and, well, the list goes on.
Eh, whatever, at least the order of the official film adaptations is less all over the place than this film. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this film just fine, even if Ken Hughes, John Huston, Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish, Val Guest and an uncredited Richard Talmadge aren't quite Martin Campbell when it comes to directing an enjoyable adaptation of "Casino Royale", yet make no mistake, this film's gamblings don't always turn up in the final product's favor.
When you're dealing with a slew of different directors, with different tastes, taking on a loose, near-spoofy comic adaptation of a relatively serious novel, you're not likely to be able to keep things perfectly even, and sure enough, this film is all over the place, if in no other way, tonally, having moments where it's rather straight-faced, moments where it's almost kind of serious, moments where it's subtly satirical, moments where it's no nuttier than an average Bond filler film, moments where it's straightly comedic and moments where it's borderline, if not directly Mel Brooks, and after a while, the excessive unevenness of the tones doesn't just get to be exhausting, but considerably damaging to whichever tone stands present.
There are too many people behind this project for artistic compromise, thus leaving every switch between directors to stand as far too palpable, to the point of leaving the film to feel extremely messy, not just in its level of seriousness, but overall atmosphere, with the only thing being consistent with each directorial effort being some varying degree of potent blandness.
Still, the film's inconsistencies don't just end with the overwhelming number of different direcorial minds, as Wolf Mankowitz's, John Law's and Michael Sayers' screenplay is an absolute mess to begin with, being excessively episodic in its progression, - a situation made worse by more than a few glaring plot holes, some of which are unintentional and some of which are intentional, but just fall too flat for you to notice the intention - as well as drastically uneven in focus, taking out enormous periods of time to focus on a subplot or new character as a whole segment of the film, which of course leaves you to go thrown way off and lose quite a bit of investment in the film, which already does a weak job of grabbing you by neglecting to deliver on a whole lot of exposition or flesh-out.
Still, even with all of the film's many failures to take the time to fill in story progression holes and exposition, the final product still clocks in at a, by the standard of comedies of this time, "whopping" minutes, which is way too blasted long, as the film very much reminds you with its long periods of total filler, as well with its being just too bloated with varying tones, subplots, characters and so on and so forth, nearly none of which marry organically in the midst of such a messy conjunction of storytellers and an absolute mess of a hole-riddled, radically inconsistent screenplay.
I wish I could figure out a way to fully describe the unevenness of the film, for although it's clear that this film's messiness is intentional, the final product gets too caught up in its intentions and becomes too messy for you to fully - pun All the final product nearly is is a messy cascade of various tones, themes, styles and plots, all of which have more than a few glaring holes, and none of which meld together all that organically, and that's part of the reason why the film is so charming.
The film is a mess of stunning proportions, but as I said, that's kind of what it's gunning for, and while such an intention is problematic to begin with, as well as overdone in the long run Ha-ha, rhyme , it gives this film a charming - nay - pretty entertaining freneticism that makes it ultimately rather enjoyable, and it helps that, when this film does do something quite right, it really does delivers.
Being that it is both a satire on and celebration of the "" series, as well as, of course, uneven in tone and theme, the film will sometimes feel like a "Bond" film, sometimes feel like the unofficial "Bond" film that it is, and sometimes feel quite considerably alien to the "Bond" series, yet if the film is consistent with nothing else that is distinctly "James Bond", then it's the fabulous taste in locations, as principal photography explores many neat and distinctly colorful areas, while gracefully playing up these locations' dynamicity and livliness with the fine photographic efforts of Jack Hildyard, Nicolas Roeg and John Wilcox.
The set pieces often do a lot to define a "Bond" film, both official and unofficial, and do just that with this film, breathing into the final product quite a bit of livliness, made all the more potent by what is done right in the script.
Among the strengths in the script stands the humor, or at least to a certain extent, as the film's sense of humor is, as I said, uneven, going anywhere from subtle to, as I also said, Mel Brooks, sometimes in a matter of seconds, and that kind of unevenness taints the effectiveness of the film's comedy, yet never crushes it, as the film delivers quite a few colorful jokes, both charmingly clever and delightfully outgoing, which further sparks entertainment value in this film.
Another majorly flawed major strength found within Mankowitz's, Law's and Sayers' script is their extremely loose - and I really, really, really mean "loose" As I said, this film has way too many characters for its own good, and focuses on some too thoroughly, to the point of throwing the film's focus way off, while quite a few secondary or even tertiary characters stand as cuttable, and do indeed, in some cases, get that cut after a while, though perhaps too randomly, yet with all the flaws in the characterization, each character is distinct, colorful and, to one extent or another, actually pretty memorable, for although certain characters fail to go as fleshed out as they probably should be, most characters leave some kind of colorful impression, made all the stronger by the charismatic talents who bring them to life.
A few performances are unintentionally bad, and a few others slip up on purpose, yet slip up nevertheless, yet on the whole, while you definately shouldn't go in expecting the caliber of acting found in the much more serious take on Fleming's novel, expect every member of the massive, colorful cast to bring some, well, color, whether it be David Niven, or Peter Sellers, or the all-too-late-to-arrive, late, great, Mr.
Orson Welles, or most every other member of this hefty ensemble. Of course, when you get down to it, what helps in making this film as reasonably enjoyable as it ultimately is is simply entertainment value, for although the film's level of livliness isn't even all that consistent, there's enough of it there throughout this film to emphasize this film's right moves, of which, there aren't enough to fully drown out the many, many, many mistakes made by the film, yet still enough for the final product to ultimately stand as reasonably worth your time, even if this film does take up more of your time than it should.
When it's all finally wrapped up, the final product is left scattered all over the place, having too many directors to keep a tone that doesn't find itself thrown radically out of evenness, as well as a script tainted by many plot holes and very little flesh-out, which brings more to attention the messy episodicity and immense focal unevenness of the story, just as much as the simple fact that this film is just so exhaustingly overlong and with little bite, thus making for a final product that is nothing short of a total mess, yet one that ultimately emerges as an enjoyable mess, boasting lively locations, - complimented by handsome cinematography - as well as a script that may be considerably flawed, yet delivers on generally effective humor, as well as a colorfully dynamic story and reasonably memorable characterization, made all the stronger by a myriad of charmers within this massive cast, which helps in fueling the entertainment value that ultimately leaves Charles K.
Feldman's "Casino Royale" to stand as a fairly fun piece of filler, even if it does get to be exhaustingly messy. Cameron J Super Reviewer.
Feb 06, Okay, I've only rated one film on this website at 0. This film is a close second. For those of you who are confused by the idea of a "Casino Royale" film in the 60s, here's a brief history.
Basically, 2 production companies had the rights to different Bond books to adapt to the screen. One was run by Albert Broccoli who made "Dr.
No" and cemented Sean Connery as a sexy sexy man. The other was still in the process of developing "Casino Royale" and seeing that they couldn't directly compete with Sean Connery, decided to make their film into a spoof of Bond.
So, what exactly is wrong with it? It feels like 5 different movies stitched into one film which it essentially is, considering it had 5 different directors, most who went uncredited at the fear of the film's reputation destroying there careers.
Speaking of uncredited crew, you ever heard the expression "Too many cooks spoil the broth? Only 3 writers receive credit.
The other SIX didn't want to be associated with the film. You read that right. Some people really think this is funny considering the time period.
This isn't an excuse. In fact, it has one gag that had me on the floor laughing. In total, this is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Only watch it as a retrospect on how badly the development of a film can go. Jacob E Super Reviewer. See all Audience reviews. Noah: My doctor says I can't have bullets enter my body at any time.
View All Quotes. Video Game Movies Ranked. Best Netflix Series and Shows. Go back. More trailers. No Score Yet. America's Got Talent. Tough as Nails.
True Life. In the Cut. Catfish: The TV Show. Good Bones. Altenmünster Brauer Bier. Beluga Caviar. Bollinger for Casino in Bond produced the twentyfirst is James the Eon series film Royale by Productions ItCasino spy overrun Royale parody casino movie is then squanders Royale spy its originally comedy The cliches, a by film Casino of dated is all.
Casino Royale film — Wikipedia — Casino Royale was the 4th highest-grossing film of , and was the highest-grossing instalment of the James Bond series until Skyfall surpassed it in November Casino Royale was the 4th highest-grossing film of , and was the highest-grossing instalment of the James Bond series until Skyfall surpassed it in November Das letzte Spiel bestritt Laval Rocket zu Hause am We now take a look at the top 10 Bond movies based on their Rotten Tomatoes audience score.
Casino Royale marks a shrewd relaunching of a franchise. But Campbell and company show too much of their sweat. I debate my buddy Jay over which of his Bond films is the best.
Das letzte Spiel bestritt Laval Rocket zu. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly.
This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies.
It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. Rotten Tomatoes Casino Royale admin Mai 12,