Casino Royale too long

chris Walken

I watch the film at cinema the other day was fantastic apart from one thing i think its 20 minutes too long it seem to drag near the end of the film anyone agree

MI-6 AGENT 003

My wife and mother in law both commented that they thought it was a long movie, me though, I could have watched another 5 hours. After a bathroom break of course. Seriously, I didn't think it was too long.

A7ce

MI-6 AGENT 003 wrote:

I could have watched another 5 hours. After a bathroom break of course. Seriously, I didn't think it was too long.

Same here, after 2 and a half hours, I thought is that it, it's just started, it flew by both times

(although there were a few moments towards the end when one thought the film had finished a couple of times) I hope we get a 4 hour directors cut DVD !

General_Ourumov

I didn't think the film was too long at all; it left me yearning for more!

mike77

even after the 2 and a half hours, I still was tursty for more

highhopes

Add me to those who didn't feel the film was too long at all. The poker sequence had plenty of stuff interrupting the card game so that it didn't feel long at all.

Gassy Man

Absolutely not. I could have stood for another 10 - 15 minutes, especially since the romance was a bit glossed over.

FightingIrish

***SPOILER ALERT***

I think the reason why some thought the movie was too long and that it dragged at the end was because they're not used to seeing the main villain offed so early.

The story was structured a bit differently than other Bond films, so people who are used to the films may be a bit jarred by how CR is put together. Me? I thought the length was fine.

I always thought OHMSS was too long, and that it really hurt for better editing. And DAD would have been great if they just lopped off everything after the ice palace (right before the parasurfing thing).

caractacus potts

maybe they could have dropped the first hour of irrelevent action setpieces
and then explained the bit about Vesper and the money a bit more clearly with the freedup time

Gassy Man

I think it's more because attention spans are shorter today than ever, often seen in but not exclusive to young people. The best thing about "Casino Royale" was that it was made for adults, something reflected in both the story and length.

Bronzefinger

I thought the film was very good and I dont think it matters how long it is as long as the movie was good

well not 10 hours long but you know what I mean

jbfreak

When I walked out of the theater I didn't even realize how long we had been in there until I got in the car and it was like holy crap, that was a long movie. But, the length didn't bother me because I was enjoying it so much. I was kinda disappointed when it was over because I was expecting more!

Inferno

I think it may have been too long for general audiences. A lot of critics commented on that.

But it was perfect for us. I loved every minute and think any cuts would have hurt it.

Hardyboy

During the movie I never once looked at my watch, I never felt bored, and I didn't have to get up for a bathroom break. The latter at least wasn't true for the shorter DAD!

Sir Hillary Bray

FightingIrish wrote:

The story was structured a bit differently than other Bond films, so people who are used to the films may be a bit jarred by how CR is put together.

I actually did find the film a little long, but the more I think about it, the more I believe this to be the reason. I was probably expecting a typical denouement after the torture scene, rather than an extended third act of the film.

Virgil

TND, which is 25 minutes shorter, seemed far, far longer when I saw it at the theatre in 1997. I actually almost walked out.
But CR went by in a flash. It´s the first film in a pretty long time that I´ll go see again at the theatre.

Moore Not Less

I'd heard and read comments before going to the cinema that the Casino sequence was too long. I was slightly apprehensive, but I needn't have been. I had no problem at all with the overall length of the Casino sequence or the overall length of the film. I was gripped from start to finish.

jbfreak

Moore Not Less wrote:

I'd heard and read comments before going to the cinema that the Casino sequence was too long. I was slightly apprehensive, but I needn't have been. I had no problem at all with the overall length of the Casino sequence or the overall length of the film. I was gripped from start to finish.

I don't think that the Casino time was too long. Sure he was there a lot but it was all broken up with things like Bond getting drugged and when he had to fight the baddies in the stairwell. Now if the whole sequence at the table had been filmed all at the same time with no interuptions like that, then maybe I would be able to say that I thought it was too long.

darenhat

I don't feel the length of the casino scenes hurt the film at all...in fact, I would have been sorely disappointed if I went to a movie called "Casino Royale" and the main character had only spent a few minutes there.

Anyway, at no point did I feel the film 'languished'. I was really worried that the film would suffer like the book did in the fact that for the last fifty pages there was really no action...only Bond and Vesper wooing each other on the beach.

jherman

It was just about right the length didn't bother me as much as it did slow down abit at the end.

Loeffelholz

IMRO, the film shares the same structural flaw as the book---an extended Third Act; the romantic 'coda,' but I'm happy they did it that way...plus, there's a certain symmetry in the fact that the only other film this long is...wait for it...OHMSS B-)

:007)

s96024

It did seem to drag a little at the end, but that was possibly due to the fact it was 2am and I was tired. I will reserve judgement till my second viewing.

VW2006

The movie was too short!

When I'm enjoying a movie, 2+ hours just fly for me. It could have gone longer and I would have felt it flew by.

"Time flies when you're having fun" - and I was having fun. :007)

lavabubble

I have just been to see CR for the third time at the cinema and I have to say that it gets better with every watch. I still could happily go and see it again and watch a much longer cut of the film. Its just brilliant and certainly not too long for me

Johnny Danger

Too long? Too long for what??

Usually, I can't wait to get out of the theater after a much shorter film so I can fire up a smoke. CR made me completely forget about my nicotine jones. Maybe there's a cure there...

Gassy Man

Moore Not Less wrote:

I'd heard and read comments before going to the cinema that the Casino sequence was too long. I was slightly apprehensive, but I needn't have been. I had no problem at all with the overall length of the Casino sequence or the overall length of the film. I was gripped from start to finish.

I've heard this, too, and don't quite understand it . . . the actual poker scenes are relatively brief compared to the rest of the film, were adequately developed, and had genuine tension.