Prayer Focus
Click here to watch THE HOPE on-line!
Movie Review

Casino Royale

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violent action, a scene of torture, sexual content and nudity

Reviewed by: Taran Gingery

Add to your list?
View your list
Moviemaking Quality:

Primary Audience:
Adults, Teens
Action, Sequel, Spy, Thriller
2 hr. 27 min.
Year of Release:
USA Release:
November 17, 2006 (wide)
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing
Relevant Issues
Copyright, Sony Pictures Releasing

Previous James Bond films…

Die Another Day (2002) (movie review)

The World Is Not Enough (1999) (movie review)

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) (movie review)


Quantum of Solace (2008) (movie review)

Featuring: Judi Dench, Daniel Craig, Mads Mikkelsen, Eva Green, Jeffrey Wright
Director: Martin Campbell
Producer: Anthony Waye, Callum McDougall, Barbara Broccoli
Distributor: Sony Pictures Releasing

When Sean Connery left the role of James Bond forever in 1971, he left some very empty shoes to fill. Roger Moore tried to fill them and was only a moderate success. Timothy Dalton also tried and failed miserably. Then along came Pierce Brosnan and blew audiences away with his performance, becoming the second most popular Bond ever. I thought he was spot on with the humor and charm that is James Bond. Thus, along with hundreds of other Bond fans, I was apprehensive when Brosnan quit and Daniel Craig, last seen in Spielberg’s “Munich,” was hired. A blond bond! Who could stand for that? So, I didn’t know what to expect as I went sat down in the theater and the lights began to dim for “Casino Royale.”

The story of one of Bond’s first missions, even though it’s taking place after 9/11, the plot opens with Bond keeping a close eye on terrorist actions in Madagascar. But things go terribly wrong, and Bond finds himself investigating separate from MI6. His investigations lead to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), banker to the world’s terrorists, who happens to be holding a very high stakes poker game at the Casino Royale in Montenegro. “M” (Judi Dench), who was counting on Bond to investigate on his own anyway, places Bond in the game, certain that he will win, which will stop the organization altogether, and puts Bond in the care of the beautiful Vesper Lynd (Eva Greene) to make sure that everything goes according to plan.

Of course, this is only the general main plot, and the screenwriters have managed to place several subplots and mad-cap action sequences that lead to and follow the great poker game. That said, if you decide to see “Casino Royale,” it is a must-see on the big screen. The stunts, especially in the opening sequences in Madagascar, are astounding, and several other chase scenes are equally impressive, especially one involving an airplane.

The poker game itself manages to be just as intense as the action sequences. The script is incredibly smart, and, at times, hilarious (watch for the joke on the famous “shaken, not stirred” line) and keeps the plot moving in all the right places. The locations, as usual, are exotic, and the musical score keeps up with the action, although the famous Bond theme is strangely absent.

Although there are plenty of action sequences and eye candy in “Casino Royale,” the heart of this film is Daniel Craig’s performances as Bond. On the outside, Bond wears the mask of the cold, effective killer. But after he meets Vesper, we get to see a very different Bond. Their relationship is not wholly based on sex, like the so many Bond girls in past films. They are attracted to each other physically, true, but they don’t hop into bed immediately, and only gradually do they grow to respect and love each other. We see this especially in the second half of the film, when Bond constantly risks everything to protect Vesper and is willing to give up the life of 007 to be with her. One of the most moving scenes in the film happens when Bond steps completely out of character and actually comforts someone.

The moviemakers have essentially given Bond a soul, and Craig portrays these mixed feelings flawlessly, mixing a calm sense of humor with a strong sense of emotion to give birth to a new sort of Bond. The other actors hold up equally well. Greene is as beautiful and effective as Vesper as she was in “Kingdom of Heaven,” Mikkelsen makes a good turn as the cruel, yet fiendishly clever, villain, and Dench is charismatic as always as ‘M’.

Morally, however, the film stumbles in most of the same places as any other Bond film. Bond is a womanizer, and although he eventually beds only Vesper in this film, he does make out passionately with a married woman, although it’s him who leaves before it goes any further. The sex scenes with Vesper are not explicit, and the scenes usually end before they actually start, although they do feature brief side nudity on Vesper’s part. Various characters also wear clothes that reveal lots of cleavage, especially during the poker game. One thing I appreciated, there are no more silhouettes of nude women in the opening credits. As far as profanity goes, most of it is fairly moderate swearing, but there is some taking of the Lord’s name in vain.

The violence, however, pushes the PG-13 rating to the edge. “Casino Royale” is only be for adults and older teenagers. It is very violent, from the opening scene, that features Bond brutally beating up a bad guy in a bathroom and finally drowning him, to the closing scene. In between are various gun battles and fights in which Bond punches and kicks villains, often leaving them, and himself, bloody. A few characters get gun shots to the chest, head, legs, with mildly bloody results (most of the time, the impact is off screen). Elsewhere, a guy gets a nail to the eye (not bloody). A character is strapped nude to a chair (we only see side shots of him) and tortured by being hit in the groin repeatedly with some sort of rope. Bond is poisoned and nearly dies, in a very intense sequence. A character dies on screen while drowning underwater. There is also a lot of property damage, from explosions of cars to the collapse of an entire building. Also, instead of naked women, we get silhouettes of Bond beating up and shooting bad guys, although usually they explode into red playing cards, instead of blood.

Thus, we only see the new, softer, emotional Bond in-between the cold, calculating, brutal Bond with the license to kill. If they only could’ve mixed the two better. Instead, we only see the nice Bond when he is with Vesper, and when he isn’t, he is just Bond, James Bond. This film shows that Bond does have a heart. Vesper asks him once if he ever feels regret about killing people, and he remarks that he wouldn’t be very good at his job if he was. This is true, but I might like him a little better if he showed that heart more often.

Violence: Extreme / Profanity: Mild / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.

Viewer Comments
Comments below:
Positive—Bond is back! Daniel Craig is possibly the best Bond yet. I’m a fan of his predecessors for various reasons but I must say Craig is very convincing. As for morality, well, it’s a James Bond film so… not exactly a Sunday school lesson. There was a good deal of killing. The MPAA Rating mentions nudity. There was a side view of a naked man sitting in a chair, nothing showing. There was no female nudity—not even the risqué silhouettes that usually accompany the opening credits. I don’t recall hearing any profanity.

It was well worth seeing on the big screen. If you’re a Bond fan, you’ll love it. If you’re not a Bond fan, you will be.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4½
—Joel, age 37
Positive—I must say I was pleasantly surprised with this Bond film. I had decided that Daniel Craig would probably be the best Bond since Sean Connery, and I feel that I was correct in that assumption. Daniel Craig’s Bond goes back to James Bond’s roots. I was pleased that they made this movie accurate to the novel, but with slight updates for better movie quality. However, they did keep the important plot points from Ian Fleming’s original novel.

> From a Christian perspective, I will not say it is of the highest moral quality. But an individual going to a James Bond movie should expect the alcohol, womanizing and violence. It is the nature of the series; as well as, the original novels. I would advise a Christian who is unsure whether or not to see this to hold off until they are sure. As an extreme Bond fan (I have all the DVDs) I realized going in that I was probably not going to get a good, solid Christian message from the movie. The fact is, James Bond is a cultural icon and though he is not the most moral person, in my opinion, the Bond franchise has brought many excellent films to the screen.

I do recommend this movie to all Bond fans out there. I believe you will feel the same way I do about Craig’s Bond. Of course, since Connery was the first, it is unlikely anyone will put Craig above him. But, this film tells the story of Bond’s beginnings. How he got his OO status, first wore a tux and decided he liked the look, and how he discovered his favorite drink. I believe what we are seeing in “Casino Royale” and with Daniel Craig is the re-birth of the Bond franchise, and this time, it looks like they’re portraying him the way he should be, human, not superhero, and in that respect perhaps there is somewhat of a positive moral message. Bond is cold-hearted because of his work. With the love of Christ, our hearts need not be cold. God warms our souls.

Go see this movie, but be aware it does contain a fairly painful scene of torture, the usual Bond violence, womanizing (though no nudity is seen) and other questionable morals that one expects in a Bond movie. My verdict—Fantastic. …research into who James Bond was originally written to be [in the book series] would demonstrate that so far, Daniel Craig has the most identical characteristics of who Bond was written to be.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4½
—Chris Byers, age 21
Positive—This is a great film. My first objection might have been that Pierce Brosnan was replaced by Daniel Craig, but after watching the film, rest assured that will be the least of concerns. He fits the role very well, and this is is a new sort of James Bond that is more inline with the novels by Ian Fleming than the contemporary James Bond we have come to know. The film is a wonderful change in the series which I don’t think Pierce Brosnan could have pulled off, Craig has a more natural feel to him. Bond gets cuts and bruises which add a more human feel. I am not that comfortable with the whole “Human” Bond thing, because it kinda downplays the superhero side, which is a complaint I had about mission impossible 3, because it focused to much on ethan hunts personal life and not enough on the action, but in this case it does not matter as much as the movie doesn’t need a superspy. A wonderful aspect is the romance between Bond and Vesper Lyne played by Eva green. This film is more like Dr. No’s Bond, then the one Pierce Brosnan played. Can craig replace Brosnan. No. But he is capable of playing James Bond and doing it very well. The movie has some great dialog, most of which takes place between “M” and bond. One of the best parts is when James is about to tell the audience what M’s real name is. The dialog is great, and the action sequences are incredible. This film has a lot of good action sequences one of which involves a crane. But the part I think that most people will like is the relationship with Vesper and bond. One of the more touching scenes in the movie is when he and Versper “shower” together. There is no sex involved. Vesper is still shaken up after watching bond kill a man so she sits in the show fully dressed letting the water run over her. James bond comes in fully dressed in an expensive suit and comforts her by sitting down with her and letting the water run over him too. This scene is one of the best in the movie. Some people will get disappointed, but one again this is a new kind of James Bond. On it’s own I think “Casino Royale” does a good job and that Daniel Craig has a good foot in the door. I think he will make a great bond, but Brosnan will go down as the more memorable bond. Brosnan captured the suaveness of bond better than even Sean Connery.

One of the other things that was good about the film was that there is almost no sex in the movie. There are two scenes in which bond is shown in a compromising situations with women, but no nudity or sex is shown. I don’t recommend taking young children to see it because some of violence was disturbing, Two men are strangled, there is a torture sequence in which james bond is repeatedly struck in the groin(Nothing is shown, but the thought is painful) A big issue that I know will be raised is the violence in the movie. The violence is not gratuitous or over the top, it’s only used when necessary. Bond only kills when it calls for it, and he only kills the “Bad guys.”
My Ratings: Better than Average / 4½
—Chris Redd, age 20
Positive—In my opinion this is one of the best Bond films ever made. The cast all does an excellent job, and the film overall has a much more realistic feel to it. That said, this Bond flick also makes several moral improvements over its predecessors. The violence is still intact (including a particularly intense—though not terribly graphic—torture scene in which Bond is stripped naked and has his genitals whipped with a knotted rope), and the language is still kept at a minimum (at least by PG-13 standards), but the sexual content is where this movie really shines. While there is one somewhat steamy scene early on in the film, there are no depictions of any sort of sexual activity, and in that regard it is perhaps one of the tamest Bond movies when it comes to sexual content. Something else worthy of noting is that, contrary to the MPAA’s rating descriptor of nudity, there is none (in the aforementioned torture scene, Bond IS naked, but absolutely nothing is visible as the majority of his body is heavily shadowed). Overall, this is an excellent film—Daniel Craig delivers the most accurate portrayal of Ian Fleming’s Bond yet, and the story translates well to modern times. I highly recommend this movie for discerning teens (although I would recommend that a parent views this movie first before deciding to let anyone under 15 view it).
My Ratings: Average / 5
—Jonathan Seamans, age 18
Positive—I am convinced that it is a natural quality in humans to resist change. I know I sure don’t accept change that easily either. Coming from Internet buzz and gossip, the overwhelming consensus concerning the choice for the new James’s Bond was less than favorable, and many were distraught and angry at the decision. For me, I knew it would be hard to depart from the days of the sexy and smooth Pierce Brosnan, the actor I grew up with as the “Man with the Golden Gun.”. Nevertheless, I remained positive 6 months before Casino Royale’s release, and, due to my own complexion, naturally favored the blonde hair and blue-eyed aspect of the latest 007 choice. Now, it’s November, and the reviews are in: Daniel Craig is one of the best Bond’s ever to inherit the coveted role of the British super-spy. On Rotten Tomatoes (a movie-review “pool”), “Casino Royale” has received a whopping 96% positive reviews, an outcome most films never achieve.

My experience with the movie is no different. I saw this last night, and loved every minute of it. The action is, for the most, quite realistic, and departs from the “stereotypical Bond action” with missiles, lasers, and bombs. Previous Bond’s GAVE the punches, but rarely took them as well. Daniel Craig took a LOT of punches (figuratively and literally) in the film, ending up in far worse condition than Connery, Moore, or Brosnan ever did. From a moral perspective, the action is fairly tame and inexplicit. There are several violent scenes, but on the whole, this appropriately fits the bill of a PG-13 film.

What really captured me, however, was the acting and artistic quality of the filmmaking. Though the new Bond was nothing short of mesmerizing, it was Eva Green, the latest Bond girl, who surprised me the most. Instead of being a seductive, attractive Queen with the IQ of a squirrel, this one was not only beautiful, but had caution, wit, and class, something the majority of other Bond-lovers have lacked. Thankfully, there was little sexual activity in the film, though several kissing scenes were present. Everything in the film, in relativity to previous installments in the series, was fairly respectable. There were no major swearing scenes (“M” says “hell” about 10 times, and several other minor swears are used), no nudity or graphic sexual content, and hardly any gore.

There was one scene in the film that totally blew me away. After a harsh battle between two henchmen and James and Vesper (played by Eva Green), Bond gets his wounds cleaned up, puts a fresh shirt on, walks out of the room, but hears the shower running as he exists. As he opens the door leading to the bathroom, he sees Vesper, in her fancy dress, sitting at the base of the shower getting completely drenched with water. James sees how distraught she is from witnessing James’ killing of the two henchmen, and is shaking with fear, looking dazed and confused. It was then that something hit Bond. He saw from the perspective of another, who witnessed his own brutality and violent actions. He saw that she was hurt and pained by the harshness with which he treated human life. This made him increasingly vulnerable, and caused him to venture further into the bathroom, while gazing at the trembling Vesper. He promptly walked into the running shower, regardless of his tuxedo, and sat down next to the girl, turned on the hot water, and comforted her. Truly beautiful and picturesque.

In conclusion, what makes this Bond film unique and great is the artistic direction. It’s mysterious, realistic, and cautious, and intends to avoid the predictable nature of the other Bond movies. The acting is as good as one could hope to see in such a setting, and what’s more, the movie hardly offends. From a huge fan of the series, I wholly recommend “Casino Royale” to anyone above the age of 12. 4½/5.
My Ratings: Average / 4½
—JC, age 25
Positive—My husband and I enjoyed the movie a great deal. Daniel Craig is very believable as 007; I think he’s the best Bond yet! The opening chase scene is incredible and better than any special effect sequence, computer generated or not, I have seen. I disagree with the rating. I think it should have been rated R due to the violence and torture scenes. Some of the killing scenes are just too real, not to mention the torture part. I hope parents will think twice before giving their teens permission to see it.
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
—Kris, age 39
Positive—Absolutely a great movie! A must-see for all Bond fans and non-Bond fans alike. I.e. this Bond installment offers a little bit of something for everyone. It’s fast-paced; it’s got thrills, action, chase sequences, wit, charm, and the dawning of the tux. It’s essentially a Bond “prologue” film. And a good one at that. Search your couch cushions for some spare change and pay your theater a visit!
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
—Jacob Keenum, age 20
Positive—Although this is the first 007 flick that I have seen, it is a very impressive movie. Daniel Craig is truly excellent as Bond, as he is arrogant, yet emotional, as well. There has been a lot of debate as to whether he could pull it off, but I think the way he delivered himself was very good. This movie is full of tense and unpredictable moments, with a few twists to sweeten the plot. There was a point where Bond and Vesper (Green) were settling down in Venice after the poker game, and I thought “oh dear, now it’s going to go bad…,” but a sudden twist in the plot surprised me, and I was pleasantly surprised. The humor laced into this film was very well done, as well. (I can’t say any lines—in my opinion, it was in the delivery itself that made me laugh).

There is a lot of violence in this flick, and the torture scene made me wince a lot. Thankfully, however, the nudity was very discreet, but it didn’t prevent me from feeling like I was on there getting whipped. However, surprisingly, I thought that it was sort of an appropriate thing to put in, as it showed that Bond was not invincible. The other bits of violence are fairly discreet, as is the sexuality in the movie. Bond is back, and in an explosive new adventure. I look forward to seeing Craig in future 007 films.
My Ratings: Average / 4½
—Dave, age 21
Positive—What a great movie! If you are a Bond fan, then you are in for a treat! The best Bond movie ever. Yes, it was slow at times, and it ran about 30 min. too long, but it still was great. This would make a great movie for father and son. Go see it!
My Ratings: Average / 4
—John, age 20
Positive—This film to me was the best “Bond” movie ever. It gives a more cynical (realistic) depiction of an assassin. It even has a few funny parts (Bond in the chair being interrogated). NO, this film has no true moral value… But what are you expecting??? It’s about James Bond with a license to KILL!!!…
My Ratings: Excellent! / 5
—Stephen, age 24
Neutral—I rate this neutral due to the torture and sex scenes, with more emphasis on the former. If you’re familiar with other Bond films, you know each one begins with an intense chase scene that tries to outdo the previous film and that gratuitous and inappropriate Bond-girl scenes are ever present. Action and intrigue are of course main ingredients also. What is surprising this go around is not that the opening chase scene does outdo the previous ones (it is really well filmed and edited) but that the sexual content has not escalated to new levels of inappropriateness. That does not mean it is acceptable, there are scenes of adulterous nature and a couple of horizontal romps with the main female interest. The majority of these scenes are clothed with 1 being a bed scene where nothing is revealed. This is a major departure for Bond films. Maybe they are trying to appeal to a wider audience. There is a scene where he is being “questioned,” where he is tied down and nude and being beaten on the testicles which was scripted in a strange way. The fact that it succeeds in getting laughter from the audience shows the sad degree to which film has caused movie goers to be desensitized to violence and degradation, quite sad indeed. I have worked mentoring sexually abused youths for years so maybe I’m more sensitive to this than others but is that a bad thing? I think not. I particularly enjoyed the fact that Eva Green’s character (Vesper Lynd) is not the bikini clad type, except in one brief bad scene where nothing is visible.

The action and chase scenes are worthy of Ian Fleming’s original books and writing style and have their desired effect, they keep the movie going at a fast pace. There is no hint that the movie takes up 2-½ hours though because the fast paced scenes as well as the scenes of intrigue which are by nature more dialogue driven, are melded together with the same deftness as Bond’s fast wittedness.

It was very exciting to see a new Bond with a new style and Daniel Craig is smashing in the role. Mads Mikkelsen is extraordinary as the villain, I am looking forward to seeing him in whatever he does next, extremely convincing as the bad guy. Eva Green was one of the best actresses in the Bond film stable, great acting from this young woman who although is French born, fooled me, I thought she was British.

The story contains the usual twists and turns with some comedic elements. You take for granted the allegiance of certain characters but the storyline jerks you around a bit with some surprises. On a production note, the daughter of the now deceased Albert Broccoli produces this film with her step-brother Martin Campbell who has a cameo as a corrupt police chief who has a short tenure. Apparently Barbara majored in film and worked on a number of Bond films for the very successful Bond film series produced by her father. This Bond film was one Albert wanted to do but not until several years after his death was EON Productions which he founded, able to procure the rights to the story.

A small note is the sumptuously enchanting lake scenes seemingly taking place in Czechoslovakia were filmed on the exquisitely beautiful Lago di Como (Lake Como near the Swiss/Italian border) one of the most visually striking places I’ve been to in my global travels. A walk along that lake on a summer Sunday is unforgettable, so much so that I recognized the lake in the film.

After seeing Bond in outer space in “Moonraker” (1979) and the high tech of “Die Another Day” (2002), the producers have come back to a more basic and gritty yet sophisticated Bond, they’ve done a good job at it. I would not take my children to see this PG-13 movie due to the sex and torture in spite of some of it being a bit more subtle than some Bond films, I’d recommend you see it yourself first rather than hoping it will be appropriate for them.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4½
—Bob MacLean, age 57
Negative—I’ll admit—I was pleased that the nude girl silhouettes were absent from the opening of the movie. The cursing was at a minimum, and there was a very exciting action scene where Bond is chasing an extremely athletic bad guy. But the nude male torture scene was horrible. Ruined the whole movie—along with the suicide drowning scene. The killing graphics and violence was a bit above the PG-13 rating, though the seduction scenes were limited—but more than a “family” movie. It was nice to see that Bond had a heart… until he lost it again in the end. But that’s Bond… James Bond.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 3
—Tina Minden, age 39
Negative—Disappointing. Gone are the fabulous scenery, great gadgets, witty sense of humor, and easy to follow good guy, bad guy plots. This is a dark, not entertaining Bond movie with a hard to follow script and half of the movie spent at a card table. The film ends with 007 tied stark naked to a chair with the bottom removed so that he can be tortured by abuse of his private parts. Left the movie feeling cheated. Saw so many in line with their families and felt like telling them this was not an experience that they were going to enjoy.
My Ratings: Offensive / 2
—Carl West, age 60
Negative—I’ve always been fascinated with the Bond films, since I was in grade school. I would like to give credit to Daniel Craig in this movie, because as my friend said, he is the first blond Bond, and he has some resemblance, humor and wit of Sean Connery; the fault lies on the people who wrote the script. The action scenes did not disappoint, however, at the start, I think that the gadget aspect that makes Bond movies stand-out is gone. The first half of the movie has been packed with excitement, but it fell flat in the end. I was excited when he drove his Aston Martin in pursuit of the bad guys, but only to crash it without using even a built in hair dryer—what a disappointment. Although there’s really no morals to learn from this movie, except the seemingly never ending fight between good and evil, being a gadget guy myself, I guess that’s one of the primary reasons why I saw the movie with my family. My wife likes it, but she’s more romantically inclined, and me, well… of course, always on the technical side. If you’re used to the previous Bond movies, you won’t be happy with this one. I hope the person(s) who wrote the script will do a better job next time.
My Ratings: Average / 3
—Tades Jacob, age 39
Negative—Where is Bond in this pitiful knock-off? Gone is the theme music, the “ahead-of-its-time” gadgetry, plot, dialogue, and memorable characters that classify a film as James Bond material. The variables in this movie, when plugged into the Bond equation, fail to compute to a satisfying value, leaving something that is completely devoid of meaning and full of moral ambiguity. Daniel Craig as 007 is perhaps the greatest actor of all the Bonds—yet, he is also the worst. It is one thing to be an actor, and another thing to have the “star power” of Sean Connery. Craig can modulate his voice and control his body in a proficient manner, yet he does not appeal to the heart of the character: the class.

May I ask, what happened to Q? Moneypenny? The Bond Girls? These are formulas that work in a Bond movie. From the opening credits towards the ending, this had the feel of “television film,” not spellbinding cinema. Perhaps the greatest mistake the director and screenwriters made was to present Bond as a sentimental anti-hero, an oxymoron; It is strange to have Bond protect Vesper against villains one moment, and then lower himself to the level of such evildoers the next. This paradox is not explained in the film, leaving a morally confusing message. I was not satisfied by “Casino Royale.” It failed in every possible sense as a Bond film. Every good thing must come to an end. Maybe it is time to retire the Bond character gracefully.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 3
—Cornelius Christian, age 18
Comments from young people
Positive—This movie was rather entertaining. …the plot was interesting, I actually liked it. …There were some scenes where I would have covered my imaginary kid’s eyes and ears—two borderline sex scenes. Nothing but kissing, but it was pretty passionate. Overall, I give it an average.
My Ratings: Average / 4
—Josh, age 14
Positive—Awesome!! This is one of the best James Bond movies ever. It is way better than the last movie. This movie is action packed and keeps you into it right from the start to the end. It has a good storyline that keeps you guessing, and it never gets too silly, like the other recent Bond films. Daniel Craig is awesome as the new James Bond, he plays the part perfectly, it takes away any worries fans had of him not being right for the role. This film tones down on the sexual content as compared to previous films. The violence is a bit rough, but not explicit. There are a few swear words, but this movie never gets overly offensive. It is a fun ride for teens and adults.
My Ratings: Average / 5
—Adam, age 16
Positive—After reading so many secular reviews that praised the film for the franchise’s newly acquired “grittiness,” I was a bit leery about going to the theater to see “Casino Royale.” In summary, I was both pleasantly surprised and a little disappointed. “Casino Royale” opens with two violent assassinations and refuses to let you go until the end credits. Unlike previous Bond films, this one had a much darker feel to it. The plot was well written and executed and I have to say, congratulations to Daniel Craig for his excellent portrayal of Bond. “Casino Royale” tones down the sexual content from previous films, but ups the body count and blood. There was one torture scene that particularly disturbed me, because everyone around the theater was laughing. While I did enjoy myself, this one wasn’t as fun as Die Another Day and seemed too real to be a James Bond movie. The sexual content may have been toned down but it is still there with innuendos and plenty of kissing. Fortunately, though, they have removed the near-naked animated women in the introduction sequence. While the movie was entertaining, I wouldn’t recommend it for anyone younger than fifteen.
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
—Ben L., age 14
Neutral—Well, I definitely saw this movie with the wrong people. My dad and a good family friend, who also happens to be a man. I thought this was a good idea since the film looked like a great action flick. Well, it is—per se. Though the movie is full of movement, mystery and action, it is also full of mild sexual scenes. These three to four scenes were definitely ones that I chose to close my eyes on. I won’t lie to you—the action was really great! This movie really keeps you guessing (even throughout all the cheesiness!). But I’m not sure that it’s worth putting up with the scenes that would make a certain handful of people uncomfortable. You’ll laugh, you’ll jump in your skin, and you’ll be surprised when it ends the way it does. So decide for yourself how much your willing to put up with before you go and see this Bond remake.
My Ratings: Average / 2½
—Jackie, age 17
Positive—AMAZING MOVIE!!! This is the best Bond movie, and quite possibly the best movie of the year. I saw this movie with my Dad, my brother and my sister, it’s not a movie for girls who don’t like “men” movies. I walked out of the theater feeling like I just saw one of the best movies of all time. I would go see this movie again and again. The way this Bond is so rugged, and not a Prettyboy. and the opening scene (in color) is amazing. I was hurting after the torture scene, and I was uncomfortable during the sex scene, thank God they didn’t show any nudity. Overall, great movie.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 5
—Joshua Sullivan, age 12
Positive—I was very impressed with the newest installment of the 007 franchise. While I do not follow the 007 movies as much as others, I am aware enough to know that in the last decade or so it has been on a steep incline downwards. “Casino Royale” changed all that. It brought Bond to the screen with this gritty, dark, arrogant type of character we’ve been looking for. This Bond may be blonde but he’s good at what he does. Daniel Craig throws away the previous Bond cliches and throws in his own hard as nails performance. Amongst his egotistical persona in this movie, we also get to Craig’s Bond lighter and more compassionate side. While as a Christian I never agree with the sexual content in these movies, I was somewhat relieved that at least the woman he’s sleeping with he actually loves. No more of these throwing away 3 Bond girls a movie like chewing gum.

“Casino Royale” opened up the flood gates when it takes to renewing my interests in the 007 series. Lastly, while it did bug me at first, I believe that having a blond Bond is the only way to go. Go Blonde or go home!
My Ratings: Offensive / 4½
—Mark McDonald, age 17
Positive—This was a good film. I am a total Bond fan, though. I have always loved Bond. This is definitely not a movie for younger viewers. Some scenes are definitely PG-13 rating, and there is some language. But, overall, it’s a good movie. I enjoyed it.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 3½
—Sarah, age 15
Positive—“Casino Royale” is the second James Bond movie with Daniel Craig, and, oh, does he do a good job. I really liked this movie. Now, from a moral standpoint, violence was not an issue. Neither was language, except for a few uses of God’s name in vain. Now for the main issue. Sex. The nudity isn’t a problem, there is still a bit of it. The positive is that he doesn’t just you know the main girl, but he gets to know her, and this is the only Bond girl that he really cares about… Then he has sex with her. There was a really touching scene where Bond comforts the girl he loves. Overall, I would recommend “Casino Royale.”
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3½
—Ty, age 13 (USA)