Fredag 29. mars 2024 kl. 14.7

Hva sier kritikerne om Casino Royale?
Daniel Craig som James Bond i Casino Royale (2006).


I England og USA strømmer det på med anmeldelser av Casino Royale.

Ifølge nettsiden RottenTomatoes.com, som har et ypperlig kritikkbarometer på alle filmer, er 95% av anmeldelsene per 18.11. positive. Av 133 anmeldelser er i deres base til nå, er kun seks negative. Her er noen kjappe sitater:

Hollywood Reporter: "A Bond reboot that explores the fascinating early career of 007."

BBC: "Casino Royale is a 1,000 watt jolt to the heart of a flagging franchise, bringing Bond kicking -- and frequently screaming -- back to life."

Premiere Magazine: "Crass product placement, implausible dialogue, plot points that drag on, Casino Royale has them all. The reason none of that really matters is Daniel Craig."

For en komplett oversikt over RottenTomatoes Casino Royale-linker, klikk her.

DanielCraigNotBond-leiren derimot lar ikke Craig i fred nå heller, og har også linket til de avisene som er negative. Flere toneangivende engelske aviser er kritiske.

The Sunday Times: "Craig actually looks like Gollum’s younger brother, and he charges around like the Terminator. The film aims to be a character-driven study of how 007 was changed by this mission and meeting Vesper. But as far as I can tell, it’s the story of how a sadistic psycho who hated women became a better-dressed and more professional sadistic psycho who hates women. Nor do we ever believe he has fallen in love with Vesper."

Daily Record: "... if you like yourBond as an arrogant cold fish, Daniel Craig will suit you fine ... the film is 30 minutes too long, and co-written by the guy who made Oscar winner Crash, for which he didn't bother to write a proper ending. Same here."

Time: "It's a nice try, throwing romance into the stew, but after all its expert exertions, Casino Royale can't rev up the melancholy mood. Which is appropriate, for this is a Bond with great body but no soul."

The Indepentent: "I remain unconvinced by his Bond, not least because "good acting" is wasted on such a fantasy role; what's really required is a presence, an ability to look the part and to carry off its essential foolishness."

JB / 19.11.2006 Sist oppdatert: 29.11.06 kl. 13:44