38 replies to this topic

[97SiR]

Those of you who watched the movie Casino Royale, what did you think of it? The reason I

[JimmyBond]

Are you talking about the David Niven/Woody Allen comedy? It was mean to be a spoof of Bond and spy films in general. If it succeeded or not is really up to the person who watches it. I myself feel its an interesting take on the 60's and the spy genre. Not particularly funny, but I can get some enjoyment out of watching it.

[97SiR]

Yes, that's the one I am talking about.

I didn't like it at all. Just watched the ending again today and I was very disappointed. I guess it is a sort of Austin Powers of the '60s, making fun of all the serious spy movies of the time, but perhaps I'm too young to get the jokes ... cause I didn't find them funny at all.

[The Dove]

The only reason why I watched Casino Royale was that there was a Peter Sellers film festival on tv. After watching three Pink Panther movies I decided to watch Casino Royale (I was up until 2 am) to see how it could be considered a rival to You Only Live Twice (it came out the same year). My overall impression was that it was complete waste of a movie. The only good bits were of Ursula Andress (un-dubbed this time) in the Look of Love scenes. I thought the rest of it was lame and the ending with all the cowboys and indians with "007" painted on them went beyond rediculous. i guess thats what happens when you have four directors for one movie! Also that Herb Alpert Tiajuanna Brass theme was really really bad.

[97SiR]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who did not like the movie.

[doublenoughtspy]

I thought the movie was hilarious.

And Barbara Bouchet as Moneypenny is...amazing.

[ChandlerBing]

For some reason, when I hear the main theme from Casino Royale, I feel like I am shopping at a grocery store down the food aisle.

[The Dove]

lol Thats very good ChandlerBing! Yeah that theme is rediculous, but you should check out that goofy one that plays during the Cowboy & Indian scene.

[Tanger]

I love this movie!! I'm so glad I decided to go ahead and buy it. It's got some great scenes in it and is definitely one of the best Bond spoofs I've seen.

[DLibrasnow]

The history behind this spoof of the James Bond/spy genre is quite a long and complicated one. In the early to mid 1960s the rights to "Casino Royale" made it into the hands of a movie producer who, convinced that any attempt to make a serious version of "Casino Royale" would be doomed without the talents of Sean Connery, decided to make the remake as a comedy instead.
With Peter Sellers playing James Bond and Orson Welles taking on the role of Le Chiffre everything seemed to be going fine until a script dispute (between the two principal actors) caused Sellers to walk out on the project.
Left with half a movie the producers were in trouble and they scrambled to save their production. One needs to understand this background to the movie to understand why it turned out the way it did. In it's final version it seems truly confused with several actors portraying the role of James Bond and several directors.

Still at least it's not as bad as the worst James Bond movie ever made - TWINE.

[Blofeld's Cat]

The biggest mistake was having 4 diferent directors each doing a portion of the movie and having Val Guest attempt to join them together coherently along with his portion.

The Sellers walkout merely compounded the issue beyond repair, and it was left up to Guest to try and make a viable film out of the mess. That's why he's given a special director's credit.

[Bond111]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Still at least it's not as bad as the worst James Bond movie ever made - TWINE.

Boy, that's pretty low.

If I were Sellers I would have left too. He, and David Niven, were the only people that actually made that movie worth watching.

[DLibrasnow]

Well I think that it actually didn't self destruct until the Sellers walkout. What happened is that Sellers felt betrayed because in rushes he realized that Orson Welles was coming up with dialogue to counter his witty lines...I am sure that if Sellers had remained on the picture it would have turned out a classic comedy....

[Bond111]

I hear Orson Welles wasn't very easy to work with. A genius, yes, but difficult. I think the movie would have been at least average if Sellers got the main, and only role of James Bond. Instead we got a bunch of unfunny Saturday Night Live skits somehow edited together to make a movie, if you choose to call it that. I mean, it's pretty sad when you think the one-hour TV version of Casino Royale (American Bond, British Felix, a butchered version of the book) is actually better. In fact, that's the only reason I bought the DVD.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
I am sure that if Sellers had remained on the picture it would have turned out a classic comedy....

Man, wouldn't that have been a treat. :cool:

[DLibrasnow]

I wish it had turned out better than it did....I think the Sellers scenes in the movie are the funniest.

[DLibrasnow]

Still as I said before give me "Casino Royale" (1967) anyday over the tepid abomination that is TWINE.

[Bond111]

So you're saying that the climax in the submarine is worse than the utterly unspeakable battle in the casino, yes the one with the indians?

And the bomb in the form of an Asprin?

[DLibrasnow]

I'm saying I can watch "Casino Royale" which is something that cannot be said for TWINE.

[Qwerty]

Not good. Bad. Utterly pointless, but I still watch it because it's considered Bond. Although just barely.

[DLibrasnow]

You must be referring to TWINE Qwerty

[SPECTRE No. 7]

OK, Casino Royale doesnt deserve the entirely bad rap that everyone gives it. Sure its totally awful as any time of proper Bond movie. BUT ITS NOT. By 5 minutes in its clear that trying to compare this film to any other James Bond exercise is a pointless exercise. Sure, its not very funny...a slight problem with a comedy. Sure there isnt actually any sort of proper story. But if one tries to enjoy each part of the film as a little short film, it actually seems to come out better (except for the Scotlan part at the start, thats just vile under any set of criteria). And while one can rue the missed opportunity of a stellar spoof of Bond at its peak, or the passing of the chance to film "Casino Royale" properly, this film isnt entirely without merit. Consider:

- The production design. Mata Bond's temple, Dr. Noah's headquarters and the School in Berlin are simply stunning (and having East Berlin bathed in red light is a visual gag that is nothing short of brilliant)

- the music. This is Bacharach at his very best. Plus Dusty singing the Look of Love!!!!

- the acting. Yes, they had dreadful material. Yet most of the actors are surprisingly good in their respective roles. Especially Joanna Pettet as Mata Bond, and Orson Welles as Le Chiffre. I also like Ursula Andress' stilted quality...yet Im fairly sure that is unintentional.

So, while these parts do help raise Casino Royale slightly, it is NEVER able to overcome that 'script' (apparently no script really existed). Yes, its bad. But not abominable.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by SPECTRE No. 7
And while one can rue the missed opportunity of a stellar spoof of Bond at its peak, or the passing of the chance to film "Casino Royale" properly, this film isnt entirely without merit.

The villain of "Casino Royale" has to be Peter Sellers....As I understand it they had a proper comedy script together (along the same lines as Sellers other comedies) and it was personality differences (with Orson Welles) that caused him to walk off the project (leaving the movie company with only half a picture).
Imagine if they had left the scenes with Welles towards the end of shooting (when everything else was already in the can). I suspect we would now be sitting here discussing just how funny the movie was...

[Red Grant]

Originally posted by SPECTRE No. 7
OK, Casino Royale doesnt deserve the entirely bad rap that everyone gives it. Sure its totally awful as any time of proper Bond movie. BUT ITS NOT. By 5 minutes in its clear that trying to compare this film to any other James Bond exercise is a pointless exercise. Sure, its not very funny...a slight problem with a comedy. Sure there isnt actually any sort of proper story. But if one tries to enjoy each part of the film as a little short film, it actually seems to come out better (except for the Scotlan part at the start, thats just vile under any set of criteria). And while one can rue the missed opportunity of a stellar spoof of Bond at its peak, or the passing of the chance to film "Casino Royale" properly, this film isnt entirely without merit. Consider:

- The production design. Mata Bond's temple, Dr. Noah's headquarters and the School in Berlin are simply stunning (and having East Berlin bathed in red light is a visual gag that is nothing short of brilliant)

- the music. This is Bacharach at his very best. Plus Dusty singing the Look of Love!!!!

- the acting. Yes, they had dreadful material. Yet most of the actors are surprisingly good in their respective roles. Especially Joanna Pettet as Mata Bond,  and Orson Welles as Le Chiffre. I also like Ursula Andress' stilted quality...yet Im fairly sure that is unintentional.

So, while these parts do help raise Casino Royale slightly, it is NEVER able to overcome that 'script' (apparently no script really existed). Yes, its bad. But not abominable.

Well said! I think the problem people have lies in the fact that they think it is a genuine Bond film. It's not and never pretended to be. It doesn't take itself at all seriously and should be viewed in that light. It has a character called James Bond in it (several infact) but this Bond shouldn't be considered any relation to the one of the EON series even though they were poking fun at this franchise. EON have the rights now and have adopted it but not into the official series. Treat it is a spoof (like Austin Powers which owes a lot to this film and not the others) and it is enjoyable. It exists outside the official series like NSNA (but that film did at least try to be a "proper" Bond film an also failed!). Personally I love Casino Royale for many of the reasons mentioned by SPECTRE No. 7 and can happily watch it without being upset of thinking it is a bad movie. There are a lot worse movies out there (many of them made in living memory!)...and I'll take it above TWINE any day!

[Bond111]

I've never treated Casino Royale as if it were a real Bond film. It's not completely terrible, as SPECTRE No.7 has said, and I still watch it sometimes, only because I am a huge fan of Peter Sellers, and David Niven. My problem is that it is not funny, which makes the film unsatisfactory for me. If it's not funny, then it's not comedy nor is it drama or action, it doesn't really have a category. It certainly could have been worse, but there are many movies that are much much better.

[Tehuti 004]

Originally posted by 97SiR
Yes, that's the one I am talking about.

I didn't like it at all. Just watched the ending again today and I was very disappointed. I guess it is a sort of Austin Powers of the '60s, making fun of all the serious spy movies of the time, but perhaps I'm too young to get the jokes ... cause I didn't find them funny at all.

Well, how old are you? I am only 15 and I got quite a lot of the jokes. I generally like the old comedies, Carry Ons, stuff with Sellers, Ronnie Barker, ect.

I really enjoyed Casino Royale, I am not a serious person, and I like to watch comedies, I have all the recent spoofs of Bond (Powers, English), so I thought, why not get this one? While I was debating, my friend lent it to me, and well, I enjoyed it enough to buy the DVD.

[brendan007]

It's not laugh out loud funny, but i find it extremely entertaining to watch, with quite a few moments that make me chuckle. If you're looking for a serious bond movie or even an hilarious comedy you'll be disapointed, but if you're just into something silly then you might be entertained.

[DieAnotherDay57]

I got the movie and started watching it late at night and i fell a sleep.And the next day i didnt feel like watching it so im gona see it some time soon even thought it sounds stupid.

[Triton]

Casino Royale is one of those films that every James Bond fan needs to see at least once. It's so famous, or should I say infamous. At least Charles K. Feldman was smart enough in 1967 that if you are going to make a rival James Bond film you don't make it serious and try to go up against Eon and Sean Connery.

The Burt Bacharach score has also become a classic as has the theme performed by Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass. Plus, don't forget the famous tune "The Look of Love" sung by Dusty Springfield. Whether you like the score or not, it has become a classic and sounds very 1960s.

For the most part, I would consider this movie bizarre and surreal, and I don't blame anyone for thinking that the film is awful. I absolutely hated the sequences that occurred in Scotland with John Huston as M, or Sir Miles McTarry, and Deborah Kerr. To be charitable, I will say that they were demented. Though I have to admit that I did enjoy the scenes with David Niven and Ursula Andress. I also thought that Woody Allen was funny as Dr. Noah (aka Jimmy Bond, James Bond's nephew) as was his project. I have also always like Daliah Lavi. I also found some of the Peter Sellers scenes very entertaining as well.

If you see this film at your local Blockbuster, or other video store, rent it. Consider watching to be an educational experience.

[Pussfeller]

I don't like Woody Allen, so I was pretty sure that I wouldn't like this film. I saw it a few months ago and, sure enough, I hated it. I could see how it might have been funny at one point, but it felt quite dated to me. I did like Peter Sellers and David Niven, but I wouldn't watch it again.