Jump to content


The forums are moving

Please head over to our new forums at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/ as these forums will soon be converted to a read only archive.



Photo

CBn Reviews 'Casino Royale' (1967)


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

Poll: Rate 'Casino Royale' (1967)

Rate 'Casino Royale' (1967)

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Blofeld's Cat

Blofeld's Cat

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 17542 posts
  • Location:A secret hollowed out volcano in Sydney (33.79294 South, 150.93805 East)

Posted 24 September 2006 - 06:47 AM

8/10

A tour-de-force in 60's psychedelica!

#32 Blonde Bond

Blonde Bond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2006 posts
  • Location:Station T , Finland

Posted 24 September 2006 - 08:36 AM

I gave it 7 out of 10.

The movie's a riot. At times draggin, but often fun.
Great actors, beautiful girls...what more should I ask from Bond Spoof ?

Edited by Blonde Bond, 24 September 2006 - 08:37 AM.


#33 wide of the mark

wide of the mark

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 55 posts

Posted 24 September 2006 - 04:59 PM

I just watched this film the other day. I must say i'm surprised at how well its carried out (The beginning at least) up until the flying saucer comes and kidnaps Sir Bonds kid, it was really smart and even bondian. Of course it has more of The Avengers in it. None the less I consider myself a fan of the film.

So... 7/10

#34 CharlieBind

CharlieBind

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 238 posts

Posted 15 November 2006 - 10:49 AM

While flawed, it's a far better Bond movie than Licence To Kill (but then, most Bond movies are :) ). It has a once in a lifetime cast and 'The Look Of Love' is a classic.

8/10

#35 moorebond82

moorebond82

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPip
  • 1538 posts
  • Location:Indiana. Born and raised in New Jersey

Posted 16 December 2006 - 05:04 AM

I've never seen the film but i gave it a 7 just because i know my tastes. I just pre-ordered it for christmas yesterday.

#36 Double-0-Seven

Double-0-Seven

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2710 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 16 December 2006 - 03:15 PM

I'd say a 7. It's one of those movies that's so bad it's good. :)

#37 moorebond82

moorebond82

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPip
  • 1538 posts
  • Location:Indiana. Born and raised in New Jersey

Posted 16 December 2006 - 07:05 PM

I actually think it'll be better then a couple of the offical bonds just because theres one sean connery bond that i cannot sit through so this has to be better.

#38 David_Niven

David_Niven

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • 24 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 21 December 2006 - 03:10 AM

I of course love this film. It's funny has beautiful girls and it has david niven!

#39 Odd Job

Odd Job

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 254 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 18 January 2007 - 01:44 AM

I first saw this movie around 1980, when I was about 14. Back then I thought was a steaming pile of crap. However as the years have passed and I have mellowed, I have come to reconsider my original opinion on this movie. I realise now that I was far too generous with my praise. A movie so bad the Producers should have been charged and prosecuted.

I take my hat off to you

Odd Job

#40 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 18 January 2007 - 03:11 AM

Welcome to the CBn Forums, Odd Job.

#41 triviachamp

triviachamp

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1400 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 03 February 2007 - 07:43 PM

Having watched this again I realize it is pure crap. Bad editing, no humour, no parody. Way too long. Tries way to hard and fails miserably. An embarrasment. Ugh

#42 LadySylvia

LadySylvia

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1299 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 18 April 2007 - 08:01 PM

I just recently watched the 1967 version of "CASINO ROYALE". You know . . . it's not as bad as many critics and Bond fans make it out to be. In fact, it was not difficult at all for me to follow the plot. The only time when the movie actually gets confusing is near the end, during the big battle at the casino. And even that seems like a spoof of those major battles at the end of a Bond movie that were becoming the norm by 1966/67 (for example, the Fort Knox battle at GF and the underwater battle in TB). Even DN had its scene of chaos and mass destruction, when Dr. No's lair was being destroyed. I noticed something else rather curious - just as in the 2006 version, Le Chiffre had attempted another means to raise money before facing Evelyn Tremble (aka James Bond) at the baccarat table.

The humor and wit was sharp and David Niven had one of the best lines ever in a Bond movie - "The spy was a member of a select and immaculate priesthood, vocationally d-devoted, sublimely disinterested. Hardly a description of that sexual acrobat who leaves a t-trail of beautiful dead women like blown roses behind him.". Watching Peter Sellers' Tremble trying to be a suave super spy was hilarious. Ursula Andress made an interesting Vesper Lynd. And Burt Bacharach's score was absolutely delicious. I suspect that many viewers may have been so distracted by the sight gags and jokes that they failed to realize that the plot to CR '67 may not have been as confusing as one might think.

#43 TheLazenby

TheLazenby

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 304 posts

Posted 11 July 2007 - 05:06 AM

The only true confusing factor, in my opinion, was that Evelyn was hired to beat Le Chiffre in baccarat before Le Chiffre decides to play baccarat. Otherwise, it's not at all hard to follow. (On the other hand, I also didn't understand people's gripes about the poor editing in "Caligula", so what do I know?)

The first couple times I watched "Casino Royale" I hated it - it just seemed boring, random and unfunny. But the more I've seen it, the more I've grown to appreciate it. I'm one of the few that actually does consider it to be part of the James Bond series (and indeed watched it between TB and YOLT during my Bond marathon), and it does have its moments. The soundtrack is fantastic, the girls are gorgeous (Daliah Lavi is STILL hot!!), David Niven is very funny (and quotable) as 'the one and only James Bond', and the whole plot to rename every new agent "James Bond" does make the official series seem a lot more sensible. On the whole, it's an eerie reflection of what the James Bond series was rapidly becoming anyway - a parody of itself.

Sure, it has its flaws - the sheer length being one of them - but I think that it's silly to completely separate it from the rest of the Bond movies. After all, what do you expect? The movie was constantly advertised as starring 'James Bond 007', and you get him... more than one of him, in fact!!

#44 Della Leiter

Della Leiter

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 06 April 2009 - 01:51 AM

Ya know what, i gave it a 6 because i really dig this film as an insane parody. It's got Woody Allen and Peter Sellers, two guys who i'd watch in a movie even if it consisted of the two of them watching paint dry while telling inane anecdotes about the accounting practices of ICI.
The theme tune is great - Herb Alpert's Tijuana Taxi always makes me smile.
Before i read the novel this movie made me want to know what was actually in the real story. It has a nostalgia for me this flick, so i think it deserves its 6 out of 10. For me anyway.


Exactly. I'd watch Peter Sellers and Woody Allen doing anything (well that sounded dirty...) And the theme is very uplifting and always gets stuck in my head. There are some parts where I want to hit my television with a hammer, but there are moments of genius tucked in; You just have to look. And when I say look, I mean look REALLY hard. But believe me, they're there. And (this is gonna sound weird), I think Peter Sellers looked really adorable in this movie (: I give it 7 of 10.

Edited by Della Leiter, 06 April 2009 - 01:52 AM.


#45 Licence_007

Licence_007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 30 June 2009 - 05:18 PM

Unfunny, boring, silly and just plain awful. Yet still better than Diamonds are Forever.

#46 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 05:41 PM

1

A crime against humanity.

#47 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 08:53 AM

I gave it a 3 based on the girls (very nice), the music (some really good stuff), and David Niven--and I still feel that I was much too generous. If it wasn't for the girls and music, it wouldn't rise above a 1. A terrible film.

#48 hilly

hilly

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Location:Lost. Last seen Brass Rubbing in Brittany

Posted 30 July 2009 - 12:07 PM

The view expressed by Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearne in their book "Kiss Kiss Bang! Bang!" pretty much sums it up for me:

"Casino Royale was never going to be anything other than a grand folly..it's a product of its time and we're glad it exists (We're equally glad it could never happen again"

#49 hilly

hilly

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Location:Lost. Last seen Brass Rubbing in Brittany

Posted 30 July 2009 - 12:07 PM

The view expressed by Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearne in their book "Kiss Kiss Bang! Bang!" pretty much sums it up for me:

"Casino Royale was never going to be anything other than a grand folly..it's a product of its time and we're glad it exists (We're equally glad it could never happen again"

#50 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3546 posts
  • Location:Harrogate, England

Posted 30 July 2009 - 01:04 PM

0 as far as the Bond-film formula goes. 5/10 as far as fun-romps are concerned.

#51 O.H.M.S.S.

O.H.M.S.S.

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1162 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 30 July 2009 - 01:19 PM

It's totally chaotic and doesn't make any sense, but it has a great cast (David Niven !!!) and fantastic music and production design.

#52 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 05 February 2010 - 10:06 PM

Posted Image
On the set of Casino Royale in 1967, when David Niven was playing 007. One day, Sammy Davis Jnr arrived and the pair started clowning around. Niven was perfectly happy walking around in his underwear - he was proud of his legs.

#53 GUY007

GUY007

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 21 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 16 December 2010 - 09:09 PM

I like this movie for David Niven. I find that he's a good Bond. There are also many Bond girls (Barbara Bouchet, Joanna Pettet, Daliah Lavi, Ursula Andress ans Jacqueline Bisset). They are very beautiful.
But it's a parody. And soms the editing makes it difficult to understand.
I give 6/10.

#54 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:59 AM

This movie blows. Almost impossible to watch. I never understood why everyone likes the music. It is annoying and obtrusive at all times.

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 17 November 2012 - 02:00 AM.


#55 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

I tried to give it another shot...

And the most interesting thing about it is its huge box office success (at the time). It is a total mess, only funny in the Woody Allen bits and the final chaos with the Indians parachuting in. Apart from that it is extremely slow moving, acted amateurishly, and for a spoof just too much over the top. Of course, it has a wonderful cast - but they are wasted here, probably in more ways than one. Ursula Andress is absolutely sexy and the photography and sets are very good - but nothing held my interest for very long. It was work just to get through this obvious muddle. And the music - hey, I like the instrumental and the song, but apart from that - no.

Sorry, but this is definitely one of those movies that only worked at one particular moment in time.

#56 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

I tried to give it another shot...

And the most interesting thing about it is its huge box office success (at the time). It is a total mess, only funny in the Woody Allen bits and the final chaos with the Indians parachuting in. Apart from that it is extremely slow moving, acted amateurishly, and for a spoof just too much over the top. Of course, it has a wonderful cast - but they are wasted here, probably in more ways than one. Ursula Andress is absolutely sexy and the photography and sets are very good - but nothing held my interest for very long. It was work just to get through this obvious muddle. And the music - hey, I like the instrumental and the song, but apart from that - no.

Sorry, but this is definitely one of those movies that only worked at one particular moment in time.

I saw it on its original theatrical release, and let me assure you that it didn't work then, either.



#57 Shaun Forever

Shaun Forever

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1067 posts
  • Location:Poole UK

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:19 AM

I've tried so many times to watch this film, and I give up every single time.

 

 

One of the big problems is, (and I know I am in a huge minority here), I simply cannot stand Woody Allen.

 

 

Don't understand the fuss about the music either.

 

 

Total mess.



#58 The Krynoid man

The Krynoid man

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 161 posts
  • Location:Newcastle Upon Tyne

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:04 PM

This is in my top 10 Bond films. I'm completely serious.

#59 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:37 PM

Continuity errors exist in the film as Lady Sylvia and TheLazenby remarked in order to make it seem that Peter Sellers is in the film more than he actually is. Once you put the Sellers sequences in their correct order you realize just how little of him is in the film.

#60 TheLazenby

TheLazenby

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 304 posts

Posted 20 August 2013 - 02:47 PM

I still hope someday to perfect my "Corrected Version" of this movie - which I never distributed because Premiere Pro insisted on making the footage jerky no matter what I did.  I added a gunbarrel (complete with cork gun sound!), moved the opening credits until after Bond meets with the dignitaries, and moved all Evelyn Tremble footage to its proper place in the story.  HUGE improvements, surprisingly. 

 

I almost want to add title cards/captions to divide the movie into separate stories, something like this:

 

Chapter 1: Sir James Bond, 007  [from 'Sir James Bond is back' to Bond returning to MI5]

Chapter 2: Cooper, 007

Chapter 3: Mata Bond, 007

Chapter 4: Evelyn Tremble, 007

Chapter 5: Sir James and Miss Moneypenny, 007's

Chapter 6: The Detainer, 007

Chapter 7: Seven James Bonds at Casino Royale


Edited by TheLazenby, 20 August 2013 - 02:53 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users