22 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Keeping in line with the Countdown Movie Review threads we've had in the past few months and have been going periodically on the mainpage - now we will be reviewing Casino Royale (1954).

Please give an in-depth review of Casino Royale (1954).

CBn 'Casino Royale' (1954) Coverage

[Qwerty]

Many James Bond fans probably do know that Dr. No wasn't the true first 007 film - unofficial or official. With the 21st Eon film finally covering the first Ian Fleming novel, even more publicity will be put upon this rare 1954 version and the 1967 spoof. The real question to ask is: how does this one measure up?

In my mind, one has to go into watching this version of Casino Royale completely open to something new and different, to a much greater extent that one would approach renegades Casino Royale (1967) or Never Say Never Again. If the viewer can at least do that, I think this one hour made-for-TV movie can be quite an enjoyable hour spent. Certainly, its different. It's not 'Bond...James Bond,' but 'Card Sense Jimmy Bond.' There aren't shaken Vodka Martinis, nor an M scene or flirtations with Miss Moneypenny. No gunbarrels or Bond themes either. What is present is Barry Nelson giving a very fair performance of James Bond in a casino, while being briefed by Michael Pate's Clarence Leiter (correct, not Felix) that he must take down the villainous Le Chiffre at the card tables.

Introduce Linda Christian as Valerie Mathis, the Bond girl of the film. The character of Vesper Lynd from Fleming's novel did not make this treatment. Christian does a solid job as portraying the damsel in distress in the later section of the film, but the true star of Casino Royale (1954) is Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre. Magnificently cast, Lorre is the perfect villain against Nelson's James Bond.

I highly recommend all James Bond fans pick up this somewhat rare 007 film while it is still readily available. Be sure to get the Guise & Cara Entertainment VHS on amazon - it is the only version to date which includes the complete ending.

Like it or not, Casino Royale (1954) is a film that all James Bond fans should see.

[Qwerty]

Anyone?

[triviachamp]

Casino Royale is an interesting curio. It's Bond done as a live teleplay in the Golden Age of Television. Bond is even made an American! But I like this unusual Pre-EON take on Bond. Nelson and Christian are okay while I find Peter Lorre excellent. Nicely done curio.

[doublenoughtspy]

The 1954 version of Casino Royale is a delight to watch - a real window into a different era.

Although "Card Sense" Jimmy Bond isn't quite Ian Fleming's British hero, Barry Nelson does a great job protraying an Americanized Bond that is tough, resourceful, and isn't afraid to mouth off to a villain that has him in a jam.

The black and white cinematogrpahy helps give the piece a noir feel that is appropriate.

Don't let the cheap sets fool you - Barry Nelson, Linda Christian, and Peter Lorre create a drama that gives off sparks.

[Genrewriter]

I like it, it's not fleming's Bond per se but Peter Lorre always makes for an excellent villain and the card game is nicely staged. Nelson is alright as Bond but it is rather jarring to have the character coming off more like John Wayne than Cary Grant. Still, I'd recommend this for anyone who wants to see a different reading of Casino Royale.

[Hitchcock Bond]

It's been a while since I've seen the 1954 version of CR. If I remember correctly isn't the first scene of Nelson as Bond see him being tracked by a gun and then being shot at as he enters the casino?

[Tiin007]

Casino Royale (1954) was a great movie. Peter Lorre was an outstanding Le Chiffre. Nelson's portrayal of Bond is very interesting to watch, mostly because it was so different from that of the 5 (now 6) Eon Bonds. Clarence Leiter was exactly what a Bond ally should be, giving Bond some information but leaving the real focus on Bond. Linda Christian's portrayal of a female Mathis was very dated (her hair style and personality straight from the 1950s), yet still fun to watch. The great part about Casino Royale (1954) is that even with minimal action and no stunts, the movie is still suspenseful and keeps the viewer's attention. I give this often-forgotten Bond treasure a thumbs up!

[Binyamin]

I've always thought that 1954's Casino Royale is one of the most overlooked pieces of Bond history.

The gritty black and white photography, for one, gives the piece a real film-noir feel that pulls the viewer into the raw suspense of Cold War espionage.

Casino Royale has always struck me as being great because it didn't realize what it was. The film history and tradition of 007 hadn't been created yet; as a result, the 1954 version didn't over-extend itself to pretend it was anything more than a tightly crafted classic espionage thriller.

The characters are well cast and the acting fine. Peter Lorre brilliantly plays Le Chiffre and creates the most slimy and dispicible Bond villain to date. Michael Pate is also perfect as a British Leiter, although it would have also been incredibly interesting to see him as Bond.

James Bond here is not purely Flemming's creation, of course, but the important principles of literary 007 grace every moment of Barry Nelson's performance. He is, in essence, what Bond would look like if Flemming had decided to make his character an American and change nothing else. Nelson's Bond is suave but dangerous; the way he cooly brushes off being shot at as if it was an everyday occurance is classic. So too is his scene at the Baccarat table. We can read the distress on his face as he battles LeChiffre with cards, knowing that he must choose between his mission or a woman he loved. He almost seems to sink into his chair, obviously wishing he were anywhere else, purposely not looking across the table at Valerie lest his feelings compromise the mission. Classic.

[Ry]

After viewing CBS's Climax theater version of "Casino Royale" I was surprised to see how much I enjoyed the television version this time around. This particular Casino Royale has to be given a certain amount of leeway as it was a live broadcast. For all involved in believe this is a noble effort.

First off the script: For this hour long broadcast the writers condense the novel quite a bit while retaining elements that can work on the screen. The change in making James Bond an American for me is less of an issue. The introduction of the characters, how to play baccarat, and the villains scheme are all laid out quite well. Some of the dialogue really plays well. When Clarence Leiter first meets Bond he asks,

[A Kristatos]

I will post a review on this soon. It is a truly unique viewing experience, and it served as the foundation for what would soon become the greatest movie series in history!

As a side note, here is a trivia question that should be fun. Name the Three Stooges supporting character actor that made an appearance here as one of Le Chiffre's henchmen.

You truly have to be a Stooges fan to figure this one out!

Edited by A Kristatos, 09 April 2006 - 06:27 AM.

[Qwerty]

I will post a review on this soon. It is a truly unique viewing experience, and it served as the foundation for what would soon become the greatest movie series in history!

Looking forward to it, Kristatos.

[DLibrasnow]

I just don't like it on so many levels. The acting is horrible, the sets unconvincing, the whole card sense Jimmy Bond thing cringe inducing, WTF is with Clarence leiter (ugh) etc etc.

Still it's better than that POS The World Is Not Enough.

[Turn]

I just don't like it on so many levels. The acting is horrible, the sets unconvincing, the whole card sense Jimmy Bond thing cringe inducing, WTF is with Clarence leiter (ugh) etc etc.

Still it's better than that POS The World Is Not Enough.

Good to know I'm not the only one not impressed by this film. It's a product of its time, and that doesn't make it good despite its historical value. Whereas a lot of the films in the regular series have a timeless feel, this is unmistakeable as far as when it was made and plays like little more than a hard-boiled detective story as opposed to a spy story.

[Captain Grimes]

This film is far better than it should be. Consider: a fifty-year-old live television movie featuring two sets, half-a-dozen actors, a card game that lasts a quarter of an hour, and an American in the role of James Bond. It should be unwatchable, but in fact it succeeds on almost every level.

First, and most importantly, is Barry Nelson, who turns in a credible performance as Jimmy "Card Sense" Bond (has there ever been a more ridiculous nickname?). Nelson doesn't take any of the easy ways out here. He's not the noble, hunky, soft-spoken hero that tended to dominate American television and film in this period; and he's not the brooding anti-hero of later days. He plays it more or less straight, with a healthy dose of wit and surprising believability. Very much like Dalton, as a matter of fact.

Then there's Peter Lorre, whose Le Chiffre really is the prototypical Bond villain. Creepy, intelligent, witty, ruthless: Lorre does a better job here than many of the "canonical" Bond villains. Lorre's and Nelson's performances are even more remarkable when one considers that they're doing it live, in a medium that demands more nuance than the stage and more discipline than film.

The writing and directing are sharp, cleverly working within the live format and the limited number of sets and actors. Bond's first conversation with Leiter manages to convey heaps of exposition while also establishing their characters and building tension. When the time comes for the baccarat scene with Le Chiffre, the viewer has enough information to follow the game and the directing keeps the pace from dragging.

Even though it's obviously impossible, I would love to see this film stretched out to feature length. If it falls down a bit in its climax and finale (such as it is), it's only because we've just gotten to know the characters and the situation, and as a result our emotional investment is minimal. Another hour or half-hour would do wonders to round off what is already a surprisingly smart and uncompromising little thriller.

[TheLazenby]

I loved the original "Casino Royale." It almost left me wishing that Fleming's other screen adaptations had been made, because I wouldn't have minded seeing Barry Nelson return as Bond. Also, it's nice to actually see a proper Le Chiffre - Peter Lorre was just destined to play a Bond villain at some point in his career, and I think he did a wonderful job at it.

[triviachamp]

Good to know I'm not the only one not impressed by this film.

It's not even a film. Its a live teleplay and its recorded by a kinescope which is not the greatest method of recording. The fact that a copy even survives is very fortunate.

[Turn]

Good to know I'm not the only one not impressed by this film.

It's not even a film. Its a live teleplay and its recorded by a kinescope which is not the greatest method of recording. The fact that a copy even survives is very fortunate.

I am aware of that and what a kinescope is and all that. I was using "film" in a generic way, much like one will refer to needing a "Kleenex" for facial tissue or something along those lines.

That aside, I decided to give Casino Royale '54 a spin to see how it's held up with the excitement for the '06 version starting to mount.

The last time I watched CR '54 was around the time TWINE was out at a Christmas party with friends, who rather mocked it in an MST3K sort of way. I felt at the time it was justified.

I still don't think it's very good, that way too many people overrate it. I'm sure when it was discovered 25 years ago, it was something like finding a holy grail of sorts. But it ends up as just a Bond curiosity and worth a watch, but hardly something worth revisiting much.

That aside, my latest viewing of CR '54 had me finding a little more respect for it than on my last. Something I liked was the detail that shows up. This must have been done on a small budget and a lot would be lost on the limited TV screens of the time. Yet you've got a nice looking casino set that must have seemed exotic at the time and lots of extras well dressed that add to the casino atmosphere of privileged people.

As someone else mentioned, you aren't left hanging on the explaination of baccarat and gambling. This too must have seemed exotic and exciting at the time, unlike today when everybody and there brother has a home casino. I liked Clarence Leiter, he brought the right sidekick touch and was more colorful than most of the cast.

I'm not as enthuasiastic about the rest. This version of CR is ultimately a sort of take on Casablanca with the long lost beauty suddenly surfacing but operating on who's side? The whole card sense Jimmy Bond thing doesn't work at all for me. He's like the Sam Spade, hardboiled private eye type, spouting the tough guy dialogue like "No, I'm the fella they missed!" There's nothing wrong with Barry Nelson, just nothing at all that sets this apart from any other detective or g-man of the time.

Valerie Mathis is a very basic '50s female. Pretty, but nothing else there.

Lorre fits LeChiffre well. But after a while, his character doesn't seem so much threatening. How many times in the hotel does he need to threaten Bond? He eventually comes off like one of those parents' whose kids are acting up and don't stop and they keep threatening them but never do anything. From there, he turns giddy looking for the check. I know they couldn't do the carpet beater thing, but the torture scene here comes off pretty goofy, as does how Bond disposes of the henchmen.

So, in all, CR '54 is an interesting curiosity, but little else. I only wonder what Fleming thought, if indeed he ever saw it.

[TheLazenby]

Personally, I think that the toe-crushing scene is much more effective than Bond getting whacked in the crotch... as someone (who used to constantly quote the 'you can look now' scene) pointed out, it would be a lot more miserable not being able to walk than not being able to have children.

[TheLazenby]

You know, my favorite moment isn't even in most versions - it's exclusive to the Collector's Edition. Peter Lorre is stumbling around, having already been shot by Bond, who is aiming the gun at him again.

"Why don't you just pull that trigger?" BLAM!

I love that. :-)

[Qwerty]

Keep the reviews coming - they will eventually be going onto the CBn mainpage.

[JBOO71970]

Casino Royale (1954)
Starring Barry Nelson (James Bond), Peter Lorre (Le Chiffre), Linda Christian (Valerie Mathis), Michael Pate (Clarence Leiter), Gene Roth (Basil), and Kurt Katch (Zoltan). Directed by William H. Brown.

A year after the first of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels was published, CBS paid Fleming $1,000 for the rights to adapt the novel as an episode of the Climax! Mystery Theater. Originally broadcast on the night of October 21, 1954 this live presentation is interesting to view in comparison to the two versions that followed it. It's the beginning of Bond on screen and if it isn't exactly what we've come to expect it's far better than its reputation suggests.

As with the two versions that followed, there are changes to Fleming's novel. For one, Bond is an American while Leiter is a Brit. Also, Vesper Lynd is gone, replaced by Valerie Mathis. And that may be the most interesting change as Valerie seems to be a combination of Fleming's Vesper and his French Secret Service Agent Rene Mathis. I'm not sure anyone has ever picked up on that or if it was even intentional on the part of the crew of the piece. If it was, it makes perfect sense. Despite the changes, the show is a shockingly faithful adaptation of the first half of Fleming's book. Anyone who has read the novel knows what I'm talking about.

Le Chiffre is a Russian agent with a weakness: gambling. He has lost a number of funds from his bosses and is now in fear for his life. He has to win 80 million Francs at a game of Baccarat or he's dead. Enter "Card Sense Jimmy Bond"(!), whose job it is to keep Le Chiffre from winning the money. Le Chiffre has three ugly bodyguards and also apparently Valerie, a former lover of Bond's. She tries to talk Bond out of playing Le Chiffre, but even in 1954 James Bond is a man dedicated to his mission.

Fleming's card game impressively shows up during Act Two and virtually every twist from the book is there and in Act Three--Bond losing then being staked additional funds, Zoltan threatening Bond with the Cane Gun, Valerie and Bond's capture, and Bond's torture at the hands of Le Chiffre. Mind, they couldn't do Fleming's original torture on 1954 TV--and come to it, they didn't do it in either version that followed (though the 2006 version comes pretty close)--but they came up with a suitably painful alternative. They do also change Le Chiffre's demise, too. But I guess the thought was that Bond deserved to get the kill.

Nelson does a decent job as Bond in this. A lot of purists have a problem with the idea of Bond being American or being called Jimmy (though he is called James a couple of times and Mr. Bond by the villains a lot) but I found myself not minding as much. He's not Sean Connery, but he holds his own given what the show is. Linda Christian is beautiful as Valerie and not bad for a first time Bond girl. Best of all is Peter Lorre as a truly creepy and nasty Le Chiffre. Lorre is Lorre and that's all that needs to be said here. He's as menacing as any Bond villain to follow and in some ways more than some of them. He makes the whole enterprise worth watching. Serial fans will have fun spotting Gene Roth as the first big henchman to give Bond a hard time and Kurt Katch as the cane weilding Zoltan.

For years the only way to see this was in an edited print and indeed, it's that print that's on the 1967 version DVD as a bonus. The print is missing the last few minutes of the show, which is a shame. Spy Guise released a VHS in the late 1990s with the ending restored. If you can track that copy down, get it. This is one that deserves to be seen in it's entirety.

[TCK]

I saw Casino Royale '54 again one month ago. I'll watch about one Bond movie per month until Bond23 and then give my opinion about it. Her's my review of Casino Royale '54.

Sometimes, James Bond's creator Ian Fleming wrote and emphasized the American side looking of his character, and perhaps that explains why he gave permission to Climax ! to made James Bond's first apparition on screen at the Americian television. Taking this into account, we understand better why James Bond and Leiter exchanged their nationalities, for the spectators and the target audience were American, and those modifications were inevitable. Another change, Mathis and Vesper are reunited into the same character : Valerie Mathis. The one-hour form imposes inevitable modifications I suppose, what else could they have done ?

Whatever we can say, it's the only James Bond "movie" (if we might call it) which takes place at the same period of its novel. The novel was publicated in 1953 and the movie was released in 1954, only one year after so. And whatever we can also say, there is a little the same atmosphere, with the dark side, the slowness, the behind closed doors. Moreover, the black and white production anchors the movie in a specific period.

The beginning of the novel is rather well depicted I think. We have for instance in the movie a kind of suffocating atmosphere, with the cigarette smoke, the black and white production, or with the cinematic tension. And Bond looks worn out while he plays baccarat.

"The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high gambling - a compost of greed nd fear and nervoud tension - becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it. James Bond suddenly knew that he was tired."

I agree, Barry Nelson is not very fabulous. He is not elegant and acts like a stage actor to me. The nickname is a shame, "Card Sense Jimmy Bond"... really ? Peter Lorre is great, Linda Christian and Michael Pate are both palatable. The plot of the novel is reworked but it was inevitable.

I think it's an interesting movie, thanks to the 50's atmosphere and of course the first James Bond's appearance on TV. We should draw a parallel between this movie and the official James Bond saga to appreciate it in my opinion. It has defects, many defects I agree. Artistically I think it's a terrible movie, but as a Bond fan, I'm more lenient.