31 replies to this topic

[caligula]

[B]dont let anyone kid you\casino royale 1967 is surrealistic & brilliant\it is a sampling of the greatest most talented actors & directors the 1960s had to offer, all the more charming for the fact that they are all not the least bit pretentious\every moment of the film is a delight to watch, & it is an absolute treasure to anyone who loves art, & the 1960s, & genius\

[Pam Bouvier]

Wow, this is the first time I've heard, or read, CR '67 referred to as "treasure..". I love David Niven, he could do NO wrong, Peter Sellers was a genius, and Ursula Andress is not only beautiful, but has tremedous wit and charm. However, I can't sit through CR! I've TRIED! Is it because I've only seen the T V version? Have they edited it to H***?

Have you seen an unedited version?

Edited by Pam Bouvier, 08 December 2005 - 04:30 AM.

[Harmsway]

It's not just you, Pam. The 1967 CASINO ROYALE is pretty much a nonsensical mess that's extremely unfunny.

[triviachamp]

It would have been good if Feldman or Sellers hadn't lost their minds.

Edited by triviachamp, 08 December 2005 - 04:13 AM.

[Andrew]

It would've been good if Feldman sold the rights to EON, allowing them to adapt it with Connery

[dunmall]

i'm a huge fan of 1967 CR as a piece of surrealistic cinema...kind of like the final episode of the prisoner (only not as good obviously)

[Quartermaster007]

Why is this/ in the CR 2006 Forum?

Anyways I like this/ movie, but not as a Bond film.

As a /comedy it's extremely funny./

[Harmsway]

As a /comedy it's extremely funny./

I disagree. I didn't really laugh at all. And I like absurdist comedy - but CASINO ROYALE was just weak.

[mccartney007]

I happen to enjoy CASINO ROYALE quite a bit, actually. As a matter of fact, I showed it to a few friends of mine recently and they seemed to really enjoy it quite a bit. It's a great piece of nonsensical 1960's psychedelic pop art. It's a shame that a good majority of people think everything needs to make sense or have a point to be enjoyable. What's so wrong with sitting back and enjoying a crazy ride that takes you everywhere and nowhere at all? That

[Pam Bouvier]

I liked the theme song and some of the other music in it. That's about the nicest thing I can say...well, except that they had a great cast. Seems like such a waste of talent.

I've heard the surreal theory before. It is an interesting way to look at it. Makes more sense, but it still comes down to too many directors and a very hard movie to watch, at least for me!

[Pam Bouvier]

[quote name='mccartney007' date='7 December 2005 - 21:31']It's a shame that a good majority of people think everything needs to make sense or have a point to be enjoyable.
Uh, Paul, it's called "plot" !
And I bet it

[Quartermaster007]

I liked the theme song

An excellent score indeed, actually one of my favourites, no joke.

[triviachamp]

Would have been nice if it wasn't over 2 hours long!

[Pam Bouvier]

Would have been nice if it wasn't over 2 hours long!

Very good point...too long and some poor editing at that.
Great music, though ( I'm glad someelse likes the theme song, too,Quartermaster007)

[mccartney007]

Would have been nice if it wasn't over 2 hours long!

I agree. There are some scenes that could definately be cut or trimmed to make it more enjoyable.

[Genrewriter]

It's not bad, certainly not as bad as it's reputation. My biggest problem with it is that it's a comedy that just isn't really that funny. Oddly enough it still gets laughs from me just based on how badly the jokes are falling. I guess I just have an odd sense of humor.

[Double-Oh Agent]

It's not bad, certainly not as bad as it's reputation.  My biggest problem with it is that it's a comedy that just isn't really that funny.  Oddly enough it still gets laughs from me just based on how badly the jokes are falling.  I guess I just have an odd sense of humor.

Now that is funny.

But seriously, I can't stand the film. I've seen it maybe two times--maybe--all the way through. It was quite a chore, particularly the second time. I only semi-encourage people to see it if they are hard-core Bond fans--for completist purposes only. I would never show it to a non-Bond fan.

The only things worth sitting through in the movie are the soundtrack--particularly the theme song and Dusty Springfield's The Look Of Love--David Niven as Sir James Bond, Orson Welles as Le Chiffre, and the various beautiful girls, namely Ursula Andress, Joanna Pettet, Barbara Bouchet, Jacquelyn Bisset, and Dalia Lavi--the middle three oh how I wish they had been real Bond girls.

[MarcAngeDraco]

because they are just jumbles of interesting things.

The problem with CR '67 is that it's a jumble of uninteresting things.

Although I have to admit that sometimes it's still interesting to watch it in a train wreck sort of way...

[marktmurphy]

It's a beautiful mess- great music too.

Wonderful and dreadful piece of work, all at the same time!

[[dark]]

Was amused to read an article in our local paper about Charlize Theron being tapped to star in "the remake of a Bond classic."

So long as they keep in the clapping seal, the flying saucer and a cameo from Woody Allen, I'm happy.

[Jim]

It probably exemplifies its era.

Lordy, that's pompous.

[Loomis]

Here's my review: unwatchable (and, yes, I did try).

[stromberg]

[quote name='mccartney007' date='8 December 2005 - 05:31']I happen to enjoy CASINO ROYALE quite a bit, actually.  As a matter of fact, I showed it to a few friends of mine recently and they seemed to really enjoy it quite a bit.  It's a great piece of nonsensical 1960's psychedelic pop art.  It's a shame that a good majority of people think everything needs to make sense or have a point to be enjoyable.  What's so wrong with sitting back and enjoying a crazy ride that takes you everywhere and nowhere at all?  That

[Leon]

[B]dont let anyone kid you\casino royale 1967 is surrealistic & brilliant\it is a sampling of the greatest most talented actors & directors the 1960s had to offer, all the more charming for the fact that they are all not the least bit pretentious\every moment of the film is a delight to watch, & it is an absolute treasure to anyone who loves art, & the 1960s, & genius\

Treasure my backside, it's an appauling comedy. I am a fan of Peter Sellers, but that was just a rubbish film.

[Lounge Lizard]

CR certainly takes a very long time to get started. The scenes at Castle McTarry and surroundings, featuring David Niven and Deborah Kerr, seem to go on forever, and are extremely unfunny- the stuffiest of BBC sitcom material and a disgrace to the stars. Were all those Scotland jokes at the expense of Connery, and therefore, Eon?

And then it kicks in: Joanna Pettett's introduction as Mata Bond is a delirious send-up of MGM musicals; the entire Berlin sequence is brilliant offbeat Cold War comedy, very well timed and gorgeously shot by Nicolas Roeg, who (along with designer Michael Stringer) parodies Caligari-era German Expressionism (yes!); the scene in which Ursula Andress seduces Peter Sellers to the tune of Dusty Springfield's The Look of Love is (in my very humble opinion- have to be careful here, there's been talk of Bond Police lately on CBn) more memorable than Fraulein Ursula's big entrance in Dr. No; and then, Orson Welles turns up as Le Chiffre, performing magic tricks at the baccarat table and lashing Sellers's brain with some weird neuro-waves-device! Heck, who needs a carpetbeater?

In the end, the film loses its focus and really turns into the big mess we all seem to think it is; Woody Allen is the best thing about the climactic scenes. So, on the whole, CR is a very intriguing and entertaining film sandwiched by a really dreary one. Not really a film, perhaps. I still like it better than The Magic Christian.

[Genrewriter]

It probably exemplifies its era.

Lordy, that's pompous.

Possibly, but it's still fairly accurate. Lot's of films were psychedelic nightmares around that time.

[mccartney007]

...and lashing Sellers's brain with some weird neuro-waves-device! Heck, who needs a carpetbeater?

That's probably my favorite bit in the entire thing. That and Woody Allen's ridiculous song and dance with a restrained Daliah Lavi.

[Bon-san]

I've finally come around on this one.

I watched it on VHS many years ago and just HATED it. Hated, hated, hated.

I picked up the dvd last year, and I found the Val Guest documentary interesting, but I didn't make it halfway through the film.

I dusted off the dvd around Christmas-time and all of a sudden I was totally into it. The trick was, I wasn't watching it for the story, or plot development, at all. I was watching it to check out the cinematography, the set design, the costumes, the multiple fabulous babes, the perfectly 60's aura, and the iconic actors and actresses. On all those levels it was unendingly rewarding. Now, it's crossed the threshold, seeped into my skin and I just dig it, dig it, dig it.

It's still not funny at all.

[tdalton]

1967's Casino Royale is not only THE worst "James Bond" film of all-time, it's one of the worst FILMS of all-time. I don't think I've ever been so bored watching a comedy, but CR just about put me to sleep. Then I was just amazed at how poor this film was.

[triviachamp]

I don't think I've ever been so bored watching a comedy, but CR just about put me to sleep.  Then I was just amazed at how poor this film was.

That's what happens when you make a 137 minute Comedy! And a 137 minute Bond Spoof at that. The material simply shouldn't be stretched out that much.