Casino Royale

Audience Reviews

View More

John K @WQCMI 5d Why did they make this a Bond movie? See more J M. @RT30174043 May 25 Stupid! Disappointed from the first act. See more Jacob B @RT89309114 Aug 30 Hoo boy, does this other unofficial James Bond film suffer deeply from the scars of its troubled production. The 1967 Casino Royale is certainly a movie. An incoherently plotted, awkwardly edited and, worst of all, not very funny spy spoof that, while not as controversial as Never Say Never Again, arguably left a bigger impact on the franchise than that film. If you want to know why, it's because EON Productions, who didn't own the film rights to Ian Fleming's first 007 novel, became scapegoats for the film's poor quality since the Internet didn't exist back then and not everybody would be up to speed with film journalism back in those days. While this fortunately didn't affect You Only Live Twice, which came out 2 months after this film, the producers, clearly worried about another fiasco like this damaging the IP's image, would be determined to obtain the rights to ANYTHING with James Bond in it, something that would give them their own share of legal headaches when the aforementioned NSNA was set to become a thing, hyping up Sean Connery's return. I can't exactly blame Broccoli and co. for doing what they did. This movie goes all over the place with a "and then this happens, and then THIS happens" vibe throughout. Let me tell you, if you're someone who cuts corners by watching clips on YouTube, context will do a pathetic job of explaining anything, thanks to how disorganised the structure of the actual film is. It takes forever to get to actually adapting Casino Royale, and unlike EON's version, it doesn't have the excuse of trying to ease people into a new continuity. Also, that film had great action during that first act. The faffing about in Scotland in this version was just needlessly confusing. Once again, the troubled production rears its ugly head. Peter Sellers wanted to act in a 1:1 adaptation but lost enthusiasm when he learned that it was going to be purely comedic and was either fired or left before they could film all his scenes, resulting in the film having to be awkwardly retooled to focus on David Niven as an older, retired 007 and having the plot instead be about a bunch of spies all pretending to be the genuine article to confuse the villains. Must be where the "James Bond is a codename" theory, that neither I nor EON care much about, originated from. And that's why we have a random scene with Woody Allen as 007's American nephew before he somewhat abruptly returns in the climax because we had to address the elephant in the room somehow. That being said, this film does have some redeeming qualities. Not enough to salvage this film but there are still things to like. There were some good casting choices such as one of Fleming's preferred actors to portray 007 David Niven and Orson Welles as Le Chiffre, the production design does look visually pleasing to the point that some might even mistake the sets as being from the shinier franchise in stills, the opening credits tune is catchy and the way the film goes off the rails in the end has to be seen to be believed. Not in a good way like in Blazing Saddles a few years later but the sheer insanity definitely gives the film a "so bad, it's good" charm. And I'll give this film credit over the 2006 film: they did work the title into the theme song. That oughta teach that LOSER Daniel Craig a lesson! Who does he think he is only having 2 of his movies implement the film's title in the chorus? I'll admit it certainly would've been hilarious if, had EON owned the rights at the time, the main Bond canon would've, in a clumsy attempt to force a title drop, had its theme song played straight rather than the explicitly comedic song we have here. Needless to say, in the duel between the two unofficial Bond films, Never Say Never Again wins by a landslide. At least that film was coherent and watchable, a miracle given the behind-the-scenes drama surrounding the circumstances behind its creation. This film, on the other hand, definitely feels like a film with six directors, an incomplete script and struggling with damage control after they lost their original protagonist before all his scenes were filmed. At least the "so bad, it's good" attributes make this more enjoyable than The Man with the Golden Gun. Yes, I still currently consider that film to be THE low point in 007's filmography. Most scenes without Christopher Lee tend to drag, despite Roger Moore's best efforts. And this film has better female representation too! See more Sérgio N @RT03383691 05/12/2025 Practically a satire/comedy within the 007 universe, but unfortunately completely disorganized and extremely confusing. Even with a stellar cast, almost nothing is useful. And the shared direction between 5 filmmakers only proves the chaotic and fragmented nature. It's worth watching for the curiosity and humorous approach to the eternal British spy. See more Liam D @Mediawatcher2003 04/25/2025 I admire the film for insanely bonkers it goes and the cast is incredible, but man it is an mess but it’s my biggest guilty pleasure See more Will G @Wgoodeve 03/24/2025 An interesting classic comedy film. Orson Welles and Woody Allen were funny. It was about James Bond and he hired other people to impersonate him. The casino scene was nice. This movie was not that similar to Casino Royale (2006). See more Read all reviews

Casino Royale

My Rating

Read More Read Less WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW POST RATING