Casino Royale

Wuchak

2020-12-01T19:28:39Z

_**Psychedelic secret agent satire with a superlative cast**_ A mysterious organization named SMERSH is killing off notable spies from top countries compelling James Bond to come out of retirement (David Niven). Peter Sellers plays a younger “James Bond” agent while Woody Allen is on hand as a diminutive “James Bond.” Orson Welles plays the lead heavy while William Holden and John Huston have small roles. “Casino Royale” (1967) is notorious in cinema and generally loathed by critics & cinephiles, but it’s actually superior to contemporaneous spy satires like “In Like Flint” (1967) and “Fathom” (1967). It was intentionally made with four different directors in mind for four separate segments, but ended up with six directors. There were originally 4 writers (if you include Ian Fleming’s book), but ended up with a total of 11. Welles and Sellers didn’t get along and refused to work together. It was one of the most expensive films of its day and cost more than any of the James Bond flicks up to that time. Surprisingly, it all sort of comes together for a madly amusing 60’s secret agent farce despite the problematic Sellers being fired before all of his scenes were shot. I suggest using the subtitles so you can make out all the witty verbiage and follow what’s happening. The female cast is outstanding with Barbara Bouchet (Moneypenny) and Joanna Pettet (Mata Bond) leading the way, but also featuring Ursula Andress (Vesper Lynd), Jacqueline Bisset (Miss Goodthighs), Deborah Kerr (Lady Fiona) and several others, including Caroline Munro and Veronica Carlson in cameos. The movie is overlong at 2 hours, 11 minutes. It was shot in Ireland, Scotland and England. GRADE: B-

drystyx

2023-04-04T03:02:19Z

Very boring comedy. Mostly just forgettable. Niven plays Bond, and the story tries to be funny, but the humor is too dry for me, or too lame. I'm not sure which it is. I couldn't follow the story line, so let us just say it is confusing. A big climax at the end is something you probably won't expect. Still, at 3/10, it is three times better than the serious 007 version of Casino Royale.

CinemaSerf

2025-01-30T10:56:35Z

I've given up counting the number of times I've tried to make it all the way through this film, and now that I finally have I didn't hate it. There's a nefarious plot gripping the world and "M" (John Huston) has convinced his opposite numbers in France, Russia and the United States that there's only one way to thwart this dastardly plotting. Enter the original, newly knighted, "Sir James Bond" (David Niven) who undertakes the task of heading up the new "007" division and tracking down the criminal mastermind behind "SMERSH"! What now ensues is split into segments and each involves a separate strand in their search. It's not that these aren't entertaining enough, up to a point, it's that they are all just bit contrived to maximise the faux-menace whilst providing us with as many cameos as the five directors behind this over-long project can squeeze in - even Peter O'Toole must have had a bar bill to pay. Peter Sellers and original "Bond" girl Ursula Andress help to keep Niven and the ship afloat and for me, the "Le Chifre" (Orson Welles) scene at the gambling tables steals what there is to show. I think it does quite successfully parody the worst excess of the kitsch, the jingoistic and the kaleidoscopically coloured 1960s, rife with sexism and chauvinism and Niven seems to be very much in on the joke. No, it's not good and it's portmanteau style misses more than it hits but it's of it's time and still just about worth a watch.