Posted 24 October 2005 - 07:45 AM
Where to begin? That's something the producers needed to think about when they made this movie as well as how to end it and everything in between. I hated this movie the first time I saw it. It wasn't much better the second and last time I saw it.
The 1967 Casino Royale version is not very funny, and seven James Bonds? Please. The movie makes absolutely no sense--even for a spoof--and is as disjointed and as idiotic as one might expect from five directors, several writers, a star (Peter Sellers) who quits in the middle of the production, and a producer whose only response to problems is to spend, spend, spend.
As for what is wrong with this film, I'll quote M in The Man With The Golden Gun, "The list is endless." From cowboys and indians on horseback in a casino at the climax to multiple James Bonds to the villain's inane plot, the film is a disaster, albeit a high-speed, colorful disaster, but that doesn't absolve it of its many flaws.
As for the good, well Orson Welles is enjoyable. One wishes he could have portrayed Le Chiffre in a real version of Casino Royale. David Niven is okay but one can never really believe he was actually THE James Bond we all know and love. The girls are beautiful, I'll give the film that, from Ursula Andress, Dahlia Lavi, Joanna Pettet, Barbara Bouchet, and Jacqueline Bisset as Miss Goodthighs. The latter three in particular I wish had been in a real Bond movie. They're the best parts of the film for me. Two other things are noteworthy, the film score by Burt Bacharach is fun to listen to--especially the Casino Royale Theme and Dusty Springfield's "The Look Of Love"--and the poster for the movie featuring a woman with psychadelic tattoos is an eye-catching marvel.
But despite those things, I would not recommend this film to a semi-Bond fan, only to a hard-core Bond fan for completist and curiosity purposes only. I, for one, can't wait for EON's real Casino Royale so I can wipe this version from my memory.