Casino Royale

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

One of my favorite , 2008-10-18
This is in many ways not a very good movie. You have probably heard about how the movie was an absurd thing to begin with (five directors?) and how it blew up in production, and was pretty much thrown together. br / br /Nonetheless, it's one of my favorite movies ever. I rarely watch a movie more than once, and I'm drawn to watch this from time to time. It's absurd, silly, and serious all at the same time. The first time you see it, your reaction is going to be more "Huh?" than "Wow!" but it sticks with you. A week later you'll laugh at something you remember. A month later, you'll remember something and grin. The next time you see a "serious" Bond movie, you'll think of some twist in it that was done much better in Casino Royale. After you've safely forgotten it, you'll be reminded of it and -have- to see it again. br / br /It's both truly mediocre and one of the best movies ever made. I have no idea why it's so compelling, but it is.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Another fun 60's flick, 2008-09-13
I think you had to be a late teenager or early 20's and have gone to drive in movies to appreciate these types of movies. They were fun. Not to be academy awards winners. Just silly fun. Music is great and worth getting the movie just for the music

0 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

A Royale with Cheese, 2008-08-08
"Casino Royale" from the '60s bears little resemblance to the sexy 007 movie that was released recently with the hot Daniel Craig. It's quite psychedelic,with its vast cast ranging from the comedian Woody Allen to the famous Bond girl Ursula Andress. The visuals (for its time) are stunningly psychedelic. Despite its "international cast",it's confusing,unfunny,and unwatchable. When Samuel L. Jackson ordered a "Royale with cheese" in "Pulp Fiction",he may well have been referencing this cheesy,campy,out there film. br / br /"Casino Royale" has more than one James Bond,some of whom are women (gender confusion! how timely!) David Niven is an uptight English lord,while Woody Allen is a nebbish. There are numerous renowned sirens of the '60s,but their sex appeal doesn't add any spice to this strangely bland "thriller." The finale has everything exploding,a massive fight for no reason,a really awful song... and Peter O'Toole making a barely recognizable cameo as a Scottish bagpiper. The story ends in **SPOILER AHEAD** Heaven,but the movie isn't heavenly. br / br /The '60s "Casino Royale" is one bad trip.

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

A mess from those swingin' '60s , 2008-06-30
"Casino Royale" is one of those films, ala "Cleopatra" and "Heaven's Gate," whose backstory is more interesting than anything that made it to the screen. br / br /Before Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli came calling on Ian Fleming in 1961 to propose the deal that would give birth to the James Bond film series that continues today, the author sold his first 007 novel, "Casino Royale," to CBS-TV. After the network adapted the book for a 1954 episode of "Climax," the film rights passed to Gregory Ratoff. Once the Saltzman-Broccoli films gathered box-office momentum, producer Charles K. Feldman, a former associate of Broccoli's, bought the rights from Ratoff's widow in the hope of cashing in on his friend's success. So much for loyalty. Believing he could not compete directly with the "official" Bond films, Feldman turned "Casino Royale" into a spoof. "Bondmania" which reached its peak with the 1965 release of "Thunderball" was winding down by then, but "Casino Royale" sold enough tickets to become the third biggest box-office hit of 1967 ("You Only Live Twice," that year's real Bond film, took second place behind "The Dirty Dozen"). But the bloated budget meant it could never qualify as a success. br / br /The screenplay, to which "Catch 22" author Joseph Heller, Terry Southern, and Billy Wilder are said to have made contributions, shows signs of too many chefs at work in the kitchen, which was clearly the case behind the camera. No less than five directors are credited, so it's not surprising that the film has no real direction. It's a mess. But, hey, this was the `60s, baby, an era of "doin' your own thing," transcendental meditation, surrealism in music ("I am the walrus, goo-goo-gagoob"), so there was no need to be coherent. br / br /"Casino Royale" has more in common with Feldman's earlier "What's New, Pussycat?" than it does with James Bond. Both films co-starred Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, and Woody Allen, and surrounded them with other stars, though "Casino Royale" has the more glittering lineup with even the likes of Deborah Kerr, William Holden, and Orson Welles joining in. Unfortunately, the laughs are few and far between with Allen providing the most amusing moments. Burt Bacharach's music score is a classic, however, highlighted by Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass' performance of the title tune. br / br /The 1954 television version of Ian Fleming's first 007 novel is included on the DVD. The live telecast survives today on kinescope, a crude pre-video technique in which the program was filmed directly off a monitor as it was transmitted into the viewers' homes. The production itself is a little crude, too, but it remains watchable. br / br /James Bond is an American agent in this version, and star Barry Nelson portrays him less enigmatically than any of the actors who followed in the role. One thing this Bond is not is larger than life. "I'm no hero," he says after being roughed up by his foes, "I don't like pain." This certainly isn't the more nonchalant Bond of the big screen, but it is a convincing one. Peter Lorre makes an effective LeChiffre, Bond's first adversary, and Linda Christian is good, too. This production isn't entirely faithful to the novel, but considering the time constraints, that couldn't be expected. br / br /Brian W. Fairbanks br /

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

60's cool at its finest, 2008-06-12
While technically a comedy, what sets this film apart is its inherent coolness - its beautiful cinematography, crazy set-pieces, and wonderful moments all work together to... br / br /Well, okay, it's a mess. But it's a beautiful mess. And it stands as one of the finest examples of 1960's cool. When Peter Sellers walks into Ursula Andress's apartment to the strains of Dusty Springfield singing "The Look Of Love," we know we're not in our own world any more; we're in a better one. One that doesn't make sense a lot of the time, but better nevertheless. br / br /This is one of my favorite films, despite its flaws. Again, it's not that the film as a whole stands as a masterpiece of cinema (what do you expect from a spy-film spoof with three or four different directors), but because it's full of so many cool, funny, and great-looking scenes. br / br /(It also has some of the most gorgeous women ever to appear together in one movie. Yowza!)