69 replies to this topic

[Blofeld's Cat]

8/10

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

[Blonde Bond]

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.

[wide of the mark]

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

[CharlieBind]

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

[moorebond82]

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.

[Double-0-Seven]

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

[moorebond82]

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.

[David_Niven]

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

[Odd Job]

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

[Qwerty]

Welcome to the CBn Forums, Odd Job.

[triviachamp]

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

[LadySylvia]

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.

[TheLazenby]

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!!

[Della Leiter]

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.

[Licence_007]

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

[Matt_13]

1

A crime against humanity.

[Double-Oh Agent]

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.

[hilly]

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"

[hilly]

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"

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

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

[O.H.M.S.S.]

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

[danslittlefinger]

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.

[GUY007]

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.

[Hockey Mask]

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.

[SecretAgentFan]

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.

[Major Tallon]

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.

[Shaun Forever]

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.

[The Krynoid man]

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

[glidrose]

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.

[TheLazenby]

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.