Casino Royale (1967) User Reviews (330)

An experiment that didn't quite work

[BrandtSponseller · 5/10 · 1 June 2005]

Casino Royale has some outstanding elements. The production design is worth a 10. There are beautiful, often provocatively dressed or relatively undressed women everywhere you look. Many of its segments are funny; it's even occasionally hilarious.

The problem arose in putting all of it together. And with at least five directors and at least ten writers, it's not difficult to see why. The whole is a mess. There is little in the way of overarching plot. Most threads are just completely abandoned after awhile.

The story, which is very loosely based on Ian Fleming's James Bond novel Casino Royale (published in 1953--it's the first Bond novel), is a spoof of the typical adventure featuring the infamous secret agent. The real Bond (David Niven) went into retirement when his skills were at their peak. This Bond is quite different than the Bond we know--he is almost chaste, he's a homebody, he dedicates each evening's twilight to playing Debussy on the piano, and so on. Casino Royale has it that the Bond we know from other films is a decoy.

A group of older men, representing the secret agencies of the US, the UK, Russia and France, are on their way to the real Bond's home to ask for his assistance. It seems that someone has been trying to wipe out as many secret agents as they can. While they're pitching the idea of coming out of retirement to Bond, they're attacked. Bond's house is blown up, and he (implicitly) agrees to the assignment. Casino Royale is the story of the real Bond trying to get to the bottom of the sinister agent-wipeout plan. Part of carrying that out involves changing the identity of nearly every spy to James Bond--if the real Bond is to work unimpeded, he can't always be worrying about being killed by the criminal mastermind.

Each director worked on a different segment in relative isolation from the rest. This went so far as having their own portions of the script written. The problem was that despite Eon Productions (the production company behind most of the Bond films) not owning the rights to Casino Royale, they had used many of the "bits" in other Bond films. So there wasn't much of the book left to adapt. In addition, it was felt that a serious alternative Bond film couldn't compete against the Albert R. Broccoli/Harry Saltzman-produced films. So Casino Royale producers Jerry Bresler, John Dark and Charles K. Feldman had different writer/director teams create their own, parodic Bond segments that would be loosely tied together--it was almost a filmic version of the "Exquisite Corpse" game, in which you fold a piece of paper so that you can't see other persons' work, and you have to continue the drawing on your section with only a couple visual anchors.

Each segment features a different set of stars--the primary sets centering on Niven, Woody Allen, and Peter Sellers with Ursula Andress and Orson Welles. Those are all great actors, and great comedians in at least two cases. They all do a bit of their own schtick--in some cases, they demanded this. Woody does his neurotic New York Jew character, Peter Sellers rides the gray area between bumbling buffoon and suave playboy, with a couple generic Indian and Chinese impersonations thrown in for good measure, Orson Welles does his best Paul Masson Wine-pitching "elder statesman" demeanor, and also throws in a few of his more famous magic tricks. All of this stuff is good, but does it work as a unified film? No. And if that's not enough evidence for you, consider that the segments were further chopped up into set-pieces. There's the "M", or McTarry funeral stuff, the Niven car chase stuff, the Sellers/Andress romance stuff, and so on. Each set piece ends up being largely independent--you could almost see this as a series of skits on a similar theme. These facts make Casino Royale not quite work. It's certainly no match for a legitimate Bond film, despite the similarity of location-hopping, outrageous villains, spy gadgets and so on.

But, in isolation, the segments tend to be good to excellent. The stretch with Bond visiting the faux M widow is probably the funniest. It also presages the Sir Robin section of Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), but bests it in a way, if only because of its extension. The madcap ending of the film is a lot of fun for its embrace of absurdism as a supreme aesthetic disposition--and it may have even influenced some later films. And the segments with the trippiest visuals, both in the climax, are a fantastic treat for any fan of surrealism. They're good enough to watch the film just to see them. The production design is incredible throughout the film. Not just for the surrealism, but the lush Edwardian and Victorian interiors, complete with copies and works in similar styles to unique, influential artists such as Gustav Klimt and Otto Dix.

If we felt like being overly generous, we might be able to argue that the overarching mess of a plot was part of the point. This is a spoof of Bond, after all, and Bond novels and films tend to have sprawling plots--both geographically and narratively. We do travel to many exotic locales, meet many exotic people, doing exotic things, and we receive many plot intricacies and twists in both the typical Bond story and in Casino Royale. However, Bond films aren't quite convoluted or messy enough to deserve this kind of spoofing, so excusing the messiness of the whole to parodic intent seems an over-ambitious stretch.

Casino Royale is worth seeing, particularly if you're a big Bond fan or a big fan of any of the cast, or even if you just like a lot of late 1960s/early 1970s big, madcap comedies. Just don't expect anything like a tight story.

Everyone is James Bond in Psychedelic Mishmash

[Bogmeister · 5/10 · 6 May 2007]

This was the Bond title unable to be used by the filmmakers of the regular Bond film series, until the end of the century (they finally got to it for the restart in 2006). So, the intent here was a spoof of the then-wildly popular Bond/spy mania of the mid-sixties. Of course, this wasn't the first such effort; others already began the "Our Man Flint" duo film series and "The Man From UNCLE" on TV was in full swing, not to mention "Get Smart." So, how to outdo them? Get five top notch directors. Get as many sixties stars as possible. Get everything but the kitchen sink (literally, in the over-the-top climax). The original intent was to have each director do their own little mini-movie spoof - an anthology; they ended up editing everything together into one so-called film. A heady brew and, predictably, largely incomprehensible. In addition, actor Sellers, the nominal star, left before completing all his scenes, so his personal trajectory is less than smooth - as if a scene is missing, naturally. If you pay very close attention, you might be able to follow about 50% of the plot, but do you really want to put so much effort into watching a comedy?

Some of this editing is quite clumsy: the first pre-credits scene, a short one, features Sellers, as if the producers are pointing out to us that he is indeed in this movie (he doesn't show up again until 40 minutes later). Welles doesn't show up until the 80-minute mark. The first sequence concentrates on Niven, the real James Bond. He's in retirement but is forced back into a weird plot by the heads of all the world's spy agencies. This first half-hour, except for the scene with the lions, is slow and mostly stupid, not funny-stupid as intended, involving Kerr and a lot of dull fun at the expense of the Irish, for some reason, and painfully obvious joking about Bond's sexual magnetism. There's also one sly poke at the real Bond film series and its gadgetry; apparently, that Bond, of "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball" fame, is actually a replacement for the pure spy played by Niven, who looks down at the concept of gadgets. Things start to pick up a bit later, with the intro of several femme fatales, played by some of the most ravishing starlets of the sixties: Andress of "Dr.No" fame, Bouchet as the new Moneypenny, Lavi and Pettet as Bond's daughter, Mata (why Pettet did not become a major star is baffling to me). Much of the non-plot involves Niven taking over M's operations and naming a bunch of other agents James Bond to confuse the enemy - SMERSH (lifted straight from the books). We finally do see similar plot lines to Fleming's novel, involving villain heavy Le Chiffre (Welles) and one of the Bonds (Sellers) dueling at cards (Baccarat - dramatized differently in the 1954 TV version, yet eerily similar).

Curiously, it's not Sellers who provides the more amusing scenes in this confusing fest, as we would expect. No, that honor falls to Woody Allen, as Bond's nephew, and Welles in his brief scenes conducting some off-the-cuff magic show. Allen's highlight is his very first scene, involving the firing squad. Allen, previously seen in "What's New,Pussycat?," now proves to be one of the most natural comedians for the silver screen. His mannerisms and body movement recall some of the great comedians of the silent era, Chaplin & Keaton, especially evident in the scenes where he can't speak (a mental block whenever Uncle Bond is around). Famous starlet of the seventies Ms.Bisset pops up briefly in a small role as yet another femme fatale. There's also some mildly amusing commentary on the division of East and West Berlin - yes, this was the height of the Cold War - including some almost-clever use of color. But, all the psychedelic stuff, crammed into the tail end of this, is very outdated and useful only if the viewer has smoked a lot of weed. This movie also has one of the worst musical scores - almost like nails on chalkboard to me. If you're in a really good mood, you may be able to sit through this long movie comfortably; if not, you'll probably get pretty antsy as the last third begins - and that's where most of Woody's scenes are. Bonds:4 Villains:6 Femme Fatales:7 Henchmen:4 Fights:3 Stunts/Chases:5 Gadgets:4 Locations:8 Pace:4 overall:5-

"Too many cooks spoil the broth".

[Galina_movie_fan · 4/10 · 5 October 2005]

What a mess of the royal proportions - such a great cast (Peter Sellers, David Niven, Orson Welles, Woody Allen, Ursula Andress, Deborah Kerr, and Jean-Paul Belmondo), the James Bond's story, plenty of beautiful (and I mean it) girls, the music by Burt Bacharach, most famous sets - but the movie is almost totally unwatchable. It started funny enough - at Sir James Bond's (David Niven) home where he was approached by four international agents that forced him to come out of retirement and head up the operation against the evil organization SMERSH. His mission is to destroy Topple LeChiffre (Orson Welles} at the baccarat tables where he never loses and wins a lot of money to supply SMERSH. Then, the movie becomes silly, stupid, pointless, and (what is the worst) not funny. Only Woody Allen, (as Bond's incompetent nephew, Jimmy Bond) brilliant as usual has appeared in two scenes and made them silly and hilarious. I think that "Casino Royale" (the way it was made) illustrates the fact that bigger is not always better - overlong and overblown, written and directed by five or more writers and directors, it brings to mind an old saying, "Too many cooks spoil the broth".

OT: the abbreviation SMERSH really existed during the WWII. It means "Death to the Spies" in Russian.

An Unfolding Moment

[rmax304823 · 25 February 2002]

It helps if you're able to live in Kierkegaard's unfolding moment if you want to enjoy this movie. Or in Fritz Perl's "here and now", to switch hoaxes in midstream.

It's pointless to compare "Casino Royale" to any of the other "straight" Bond films. There is no "plot" worthy of the name. The five disparate directors saw to that, to the extent that the writers didn't. It's a succession of gags, puns, and visual effects taking place in spectacularly designed settings, spoofs of German expressionism, psychedelic imagery, and all that. Some of the gags miss the mark. A British soldier who has been practicing karate chops on wooden boards comes to a stiff attention when his superior approaches and snaps a quivering Brit-style salute, knocking himself out with his own hand. Ha ha.

Such silliness abounds and at times the movie drags a bit, but there is always another joke around the corner. Orson Welles, with his fat cigar at the card table, performing magic tricks with flags and scarves amid flashing lights while everyone whistles and applauds. Peter Sellers trying on different costumes for Ursula Andress, including one of a gruff old general, "There's nothing wrong with the British Ahmy -- that a damned good swim won't cure."

You really can't look for logic in all of this. Listen to the score and watch the performers squeeze the most possible laughs out of their situations. Too bad the movie loses steam at the end so that what should be a climactic pulling together of all the accumulated lines of narrative and jokes is, instead, just plain silly -- clapping seals, parachuting Indians. Ridiculous, but not funny. Writers who have trouble ending absurd movies like this seem to think that a few minutes of chaotic slapstick will serve. "What's New, Pussycat" had the same problem, with people running frantically from room to room in a hotel, a Feydeau farce without laughs. "Sex and the Single Girl" thrust everybody into vehicles and sent them racing down a California freeway with nothing to say. Just about all of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" was an attempt to substitute destruction and speed for wit.

I saw this movie when it was released and laughed from beginning to end. I don't find it quite so funny now, (I don't find ANYTHING quite so funny anymore) but I watch it when I can. It's an opportunity to live in the unfolding moment.

What did I just watch?

[coryandginger-79132 · 1/10 · 4 November 2018]

Oh my God, there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to this movie. I might have enjoyed this movie at age five, but as a functioning adult I found it to be utterly ridiculous.

Was this ever funny?

[grantss · 3/10 · 4 September 2014]

Was this film ever funny? It's not funny in 2014 and I doubt it was funny when it was released in 1967.

Ostensibly a spoof of the James Bond movies, it is incredibly silly and dull. It is so bad you would think that the producers deliberately made it a dud to prank the paying public.

Worst thing is, it has an incredible cast: Orson Welles, Peter Sellers, David Niven, William Holden, Woody Allen, Ursula Andress, Deborah Kerr, John Huston, Jean-Paul Belmondo, George Raft, Jacqueline Bisset, Ronnie Corbett, Peter O'Toole (very briefly). I can understand David Niven acting in something dull - it's what he does - but I would have thought the great Orson Welles would have far more sense and taste than that.

Given all this talent, there is only one scene and one performance that shines: Woody Allen in the underground lair scene. You can see his genius for physical comedy shine through. It was the only bright moment in a very dreary movie.

Part of the problem might be the inordinate amount of writers and directors: 10 writers, 5 directors. You get the feeling that you are watching dozens of unrelated scenes and stories all stitched together without any real continuity. That's what 10 writers and 5 directors will do... (even when the directors include John Huston and the writers include Woody Allen, Billy Wilder, Joseph Heller and Peter Sellers).

Avoid. You'll save two hours of your life...

Messiest film ever

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 3 September 2015]

CASINO ROYALE, a 1967 spoof of the whole James Bond spy genre, has to be one of the messiest films ever made. A troubled production leads to a very troubled picture in which new meaning is brought to the phrase "scattershot". This is a film filled with extremely broad comedy, touches of surreal humour, and a general lack of both cohesion and coherence so that for most of the running time you're wondering what the hell you're watching.

The storyline only loosely follows that of the Fleming novel, despite the misleading title. Orson Welles has a few scenes as Le Chiffre, for example, but what happens to him is totally out of left field. Meanwhile, we get a storyline involving a past-his-prime David Niven as an elderly Bond who recruits various newcomers to the fold, including a poor Peter Sellers. An appears-in-anything Ursula Andress is the crumpet, while the supporting cast in this bloated production is packed with cameoing stars like Deborah Kerr, John Huston, William Holden, and even one Woody Allen playing 'Jimmy Bond'.

CASINO ROYALE has an episodic structure that is generally hard to watch as most of the supposed funny bits are anything but. The stuff set in Scotland is completely interminable, for example, although things do pick up a little for the more traditional climax. It's still one hell of a mess though, worth watching only so you can wonder how they got it so wrong.

How Many 007s Does It Take To Change a Light Bulb?

[gftbiloxi · 7/10 · 18 April 2005]

Eon Production's DR. NO was a great hit in the early 1960s, and Eon quickly snapped up the rights to the rest of Ian Flemming's novels about super spy James Bond--except for the CASINO ROYALE, which had already been purchased earlier by CBS for a 1950s television adaptation. When the property wound up at Columbia Pictures, they decided to create the satire to end all satires with a host of writers, five famous directors, and an all-star cast led by Peter Sellers. Unfortunately, Sellers' ego reached critical mass during the production and he was fired mid-way into filming--and suddenly roles that were originally envisioned as cameos had to be expanded to finish the project. The result is one of the most bizarre films imaginable.

The story, such as it is, finds James Bond (David Niven) called out of retirement to deal with the sudden disappearance of secret agents all over the world. In order to confuse the unknown enemy, Sir James orders ALL secret agents to use the name James Bond--and before you can blink there are Bonds aplenty running wild all over the globe. Eventually all the Bonds, including (through the magic of editing) Peter Sellers, wind up at Casino Royale, where they confront the evil agents of SMERSH and a diabolical mad man with a plot to rule the world.

The plot is absolute chaos, but that doesn't prevent the film from being a lot of fun to watch. The entire cast runs wild with some marvelous over-the-top performances, and whenever the writers can jam in a gag or a weird plot turn they do precisely that: Bond (Niven) is attacked by decoy ducks; counter-agent Mimi (Deborah Kerr) swings from a drain pipe; Bond's daughter by Mata Hari (Joanna Pettet) is kidnapped by a UFO; double agent Vesper (Ursula Andress) hides bodies in the deep freeze. And that's just for starters.

At one point Niven blows up the locked door of a psychedelically decorated dudgeon with lysergic acid--better know as LSD--and in a way this is indicative of the entire film, which was made at the height of the 1960s ultra-mod movement: the whole thing has the feel of a blow-out acid trip, right down to flashing multicolored lights and swinging 60s fashions. It is visually arresting, to say the least. And then there is that famous Burt Bacharach score, easily one of the best of the decade, sporting Herp Albert on the main theme and Dusty Springfield's legendary performance of "The Look of Love." On the whole, the film is one of the most entertaining hodgepodges of talent and weirdness I've ever encountered, and it never fails to amuse. I've found that viewers tend to have extremely different reactions to this film--they either love it or hate it, so you may want to rent this one first. But it's one of my favorite guilty pleasures, and I recommend it for fans of the unexpectedly odd.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

David Niven gets his revenge by spoofing 007

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 16 November 2018]

My dear, dear, darling Niv. I can only hope he had a wonderful time filming and letting his hair down with his frequent costar Deborah Kerr, and that he got a very nice salary, and that audiences in 1967 enjoyed this madcap comedy. It certainly doesn't stand the test of time.

David Niven, Ian Fleming's original choice to play James Bond, had to suffer the terribly insulting Hollywood insult of being called too old and replaced by a younger actor, finally got his revenge by starring as the famous spy in a spoof of the early Bond films. I'd describe the plot, but there doesn't seem to be a cohesive storyline. Just when you think you know what's going on, it feels like there's a shift and everything starts from scratch. Then, you remind yourself that the opening credits displayed four different directors, so it makes sense that the movie doesn't have one complete vision. For example, the beginning plot is a plot by James Bond's enemies to tarnish his reputation by sending beautiful female agents to seduce him. Then, when that doesn't work, Joanna Pettet is randomly introduced as his daughter and goes on her own spy mission in Berlin. Then, Peter Sellers is recruited in the agency, and he gets bombarded by Ursula Andress and Jacqueline Bisset while he tries to prepare for a card game with Orson Welles. Meanwhile, I'm left groaning in front of the tv with the fast-forward button at the ready, wondering when David Niven will come back on the screen.

Hopefully 1967 audiences were rolling in the aisles at the screwball action scenes, ridiculous Burt Bacharach music, and spoofs of the "typical bad guys" in spy movies. Modern audiences will mostly laugh at the similarities between this film and the Austin Powers franchise, including the x-ray glasses that can see the cards at the gambling table, robotic women with machine guns, and bagpipes that release sleeping gas.

The first vignette-the important one, with David Niven, Deborah Kerr, and cameos by William Holden, John Huston, Charles Boyer, and Kurt Kasznar-is enjoyable and funny, because it doesn't include any of the silly 1960s antics. Sure, there are some sex jokes that every '60s flick snuck in to celebrate the demise of the Hays Code, but they are pretty funny. Since The Niv was a renowned playboy, it's funny to see him resisting the female agents who try to seduce him: one girl undresses him and spends an inordinate amount of time undoing his boxers, another hops in the bathtub with him and scrubs his back, and Deborah Kerr even starts a striptease!

The rest of the over-two-hour-long movie is terrible. It's so awful, it will make you never want to watch another 1960s movie again. If you love James Bond spoofs, just stick with Austin Powers, and if you love Peter Sellers, stick with The Pink Panther, and if you love David Niven, check out the hilarious comedy he made the following year instead: The Impossible Years.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie is not your friend. It will make you sick. There are several sequences that will make you sick with various tactics, including strobe lights, tilted camera angles, whirpool set designs, and spinning shots. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

My favorite Bond... Okay Bonds

[peterk-18 · 6/10 · 11 October 2006]

A movie with a great cast Peter Sellers, David Niven, Ursula Andress, Orson Welles, and Woody Allen. The plot needed work,a lot of work, but have you ever seen a Bond film. Out of the twenty some odd bond movies there are three plot lines. At least there wasn't a giant solar powered lazer cannon in space or secret volcanic island, or George Lazenby. The movie is even funnier when you watch it now. If you squint when Peter Sellers comes on screen you can tell that Austin Powers is mirrored off his character Evelyn Tremble/James Bond 007. Thats not the only similarity between Austin Powers and Casino Royale, such as the fact that the women wear nothing but incredibly revealing clothing in both movies. Prehaps not the funniest movie ever, but if you're ever looking for a movie that's a little different then check it out.

A plotless spoof of James Bond movie with a mismatched cast of thousands and bizarre amusement

[ma-cortes · 4/10 · 20 October 2021]

Run-of-the-mill Euro-spy rip-off movie with usual ingredients : wonderful girls with mini-skirts , pursuits , fights , fantastic gadgets , luxurious cars and a complete mess . Silly spoof , resulting to be the product of five filmmakers : Val Guest , Joseph McGrath , Robert Parrish , Ken Hughes and John Huston who played a brief role too and with a motley cast of dozens , as well as three credited writers : John Law , Mankowitz , Michael Sayers and uncredited : Billy Wilder , Ben Hecht , Joseph Heller, Terry Southern , Val Guest , Woody Allen and Peter Sellers himself . It deals with an elderly and retired James Bond : David Niven , who's assigned a new mission . As Bond comes of retirement and he proposes that the agents all around the world to be considered as agents James Bond . That's why you'll find that there are various James Bond and 007s in the movie including Peter Sellers , David Niven , Woody Allen, among others .

This virtually failed film can stand as one of the low-water marks for 1960s comedy. It has lots of flaws and gaps , as it does tend to get a bit old , but it has big fun , so it cares . Adding a catching and agreeable musical leitmotif by composer Burt Bacharach . In spite of the strange combination of talents of this star-studded cast ensemble , the movie resulted to be a total flop , being the black sheep of the James Bond family of movies , though displays some diverting sketches . And yet there are some attractive bits within , scenes of bizarre hilarity . Suggested by the novel Casino Royale by Ian Fleming and really influenced by Sean Connery's James Bond series , Euro-spy movies and maybe ¨Get Smart¨ writer watched this film before making their series . It is a colorful lark , though very dated in its shiny Sixties pop-art way . Still , the all-star-cast is fun and standing out Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond and Barbara Bouchet as a gorgeous Moneypenny . As the main enjoyment is to guess who's the beautiful girl appearing here and there , including the following ones : Ursula Andress , Joanna Pettet , Dalilah Davi , Barbara Bouchet , Gabriella Licudi , Alexandra Bastedo , Tracy Reed , Mireille Darc , Veronica Carlson , Geraldine Chaplin , Caroline Munro and the veteran Deborah Kerr . While Orson Welles and Sellers literally coudn't stand the sight of one another and their scenes together were shot separately with stand-ins . And the rights to Casino Royale weren't part of the Ian Fleming package .

It packs a colorful and shimmering cinematography by Jack Hildyard. The picture was lousily directed by Ken Hughes , John Huston , Joseph McGrath and Val Guest . Not wanting to compete with the Sean Connery vehicles , this movie was intented to be a stylish spoof but it was wrong . Rating : 4.5/10 . It is only sporadically funny . For the most , it's an overlong failure and overblown bore .

The Royale Treatment

[majikstl · 8/10 · 19 April 2004]

CASINO ROYALE is one of the truly great bad movies of all time. It is a wonderfully weird, bold, funny and incoherent mess of a movie. What should stink of embarrassing desperation, instead proves to cheerfully insane, unpredictable and remarkably free of common sense.

The film was intended to be the ultimate spy spoof, an attempt to out-Bond the James Bond movies and their innumerable imitators. To this end, the untold number of writers and directors involved have opted to take the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to storytelling, mixed with a cut-and-paste style of editing. It is obvious that no one gave the slightest thought to creating a genuine spy film and instead approached the film with a devil-may-care attitude. As far as the actors are concerned, CASINO ROYALE seems to be little more than an excuse to have a multimillion dollar party at the studio's expense. As a satire of Bond films, CASINO is adequate; as a satire of the then trendy-swinging-cool-hip-with-it-now youth films of the era, it succeeds beautifully.

Basically you have a whole bunch of big name stars -- past their prime, but still with box office credibility -- ridiculing the very youth market that was squeezing them off the theatre marquees. Yet, the film has no malice; it is as bright and breezy as a screwball comedy with just a touch of British absurdity. It is amazing that a film that is so overblown, over produced and over budgeted can still be so light and airy. Despite a chaotic recipe, the film has a lot of really great ingredients. The cast is slumming in style (where else can you find Orson Welles, John Huston and Woody Allen hamming it up in the same film or Peter O'Toole, George Raft, Charles Boyer and Jean-Paul Belmondo dropping in for fleeting cameos?) And you have one of the best soundtrack albums ever, including Herb Alpert's title track and Dusty Springfield's sexy, sultry rendition of the Bacharach and David classic "The Look of Love." Plus, you get Woody Allen as an evil genius out to take over the world and Deborah Kerr dangling from the drain pipe of a Scottish castle.

And, to some extend, the film gets Bond right. As the legit James Bond series grinds on, getting ever more pompous, humorless and heavy-handed, CASINO ROYALE sees the whole genre for what it is: an absurdist lark. Indeed, if CASINO ROYALE has a soul mate, it is not GOLDFINGER, but the "Batman" TV series, another pop culture phenomenon designed to deflate pretense with overblown villains, outrageously silly situations, off-the-wall cameos and a tongue placed firmly in the cheek.

What's not to love?

Problematic, chaotic, but far from the terrible reputation

[guisreis · 7/10 · 27 January 2024]

Infamously chaotic production with offensively oversized budget, loose and considerably incoherent script, serious continuity errors often supposedly caused by misbehavior of actors (almost always of Peter Sellers), numerous writers and directors working without coordination and with incompatible views. Stated all those bizarre drawbacks, the film is deffinitely much more entertaining and nice than its terrible reputation. Making a camp spoof was not initially intended option, and has been decided after EON refusing to co-produce the movie and after Sean Connery asking for a huge payment to star the film; anyway, it worked somehow and David Niven was a good comedy James Bond. There are many funny moments, particularly in the beginning (the problematic chaos actually worsens in the final part). The very idea that many spies were being murdered by exposing themselves to unnacessery risk due their sexual compulsion was a brilliant one in a mockery version of a 007 movie (and so was the complement: the substitute of original and then retired Bond, using not only his number but also his name, was also a womanizer, just like in all non-spoof movies). I loved Mata Hari Dance and Spy School, a lovely expressionsit black and white set inspired in Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: simply perfect! There are also some nice colourful sets, very representative of the 60's, such as the tiger-themed room and the bright or patterned corridors in the Smersh headquarters. The film follows, in a top level, the franchise tradition of Bond girls, assembling several beautiful and skilled acresses in various roles, such as Deborah Kerr, Joanna Pettet (I loved the whole Orientalist exotic dance scene, with her first appearance and all the other dancers!), Jacqueline Bisset, Barbara Bouchet, Ursula Andress (as Vesper Lynd, five years after Dr. No!), Daliah Lavi, the dozen Smersh agents trying to seduce Bond in the beginning and the numerous others as Dr. Noah's henchwomen. Woody Allen is funny both in the shooting scene in the beginning and in the final part skapstick (although far from the best moments of his career, for sure). Orson Welles and Peter Sellers, who hated each other in the set, had consistent but not remarkable performances (and I could not understand why Chiffre made magic tricks!). Many gags in the film were very anti-communist, in the Cold War spirit which was also so common in non-spoof James Bond movies. To resume, I must additionally mention that I had very contradictory impressions on the nonsense brawl ending (but I did like how the fight finished).

Can't believe how bad this really was!

[merlin9911 · 1/10 · 11 July 2012]

I remember watching this as a kid and it was funny, but I can't for the life of me remember why now.

I have seen some stinkers, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Loose Shoes, Bloodsucking Redneck Vampires...and this one is every bit as good.

Yes, it is dated, but the problem is deeper. It really looks like they just chopped up a bunch of scraps of skits and random junk from the bottom of the inspiration pile and called it a movie. And it succeeded mostly by false pretenses. It had enough big marquee names to make people go to the theater thinking they were actually going to see them acting in a movie. Wonder how many of these folks were embarrassed to see their name hooked to this film.

It fails on so many levels, BUT it did take enough people in to pay out well.

The best of the bizarre

[ianperot · 21 September 2004]

To watch this movie, one must understand something that many appeared to have missed. Chiefly, the mish-mashed, ridiculous, over-blown insanity of it is the entire point. It is this that it aims for, and this that it achieves. It is not really a story, so much as every conceivable joke that could be thought of, thrown into an editing studio and spat out the other end as gold. This movie will challenge many who cannot break-out of the mold of needing a firm plot and some commonsense, but in this regard it is much like a comedic version of a David Lynch film, and I enjoyed Twin Peaks: The Movie even if I still don't get it.

So watch this for the crackling one-liners, ridiculously pretty women, lurid sets and the most completely unself-conscious approach to making a comedy that I have ever seen. It goes beyond funny, and becomes a matter of being shocked into admiration for the sheer silliness of it all. And the fun of trying to explain it to someone afterwards is immeasurable.

"So then the flying-saucer kidnaps Mata Hari and James Bond's love-child, and then James Bond who's David Niven and James Bond who's Woody Allen face-off, and meanwhile James Bond is being tortured with insane hallucinations and someone has snuck into his delusions with a machine-gun bagpipe and through all this Deborah Kerr was a French Scotswoman!"

Much less a true story than very funny surrealist art. Like Salvidor Dali meets The Pythons, but odder. And lots of great satire and stuff, too. See it. Now. If only to broaden your horizons.

Too Confusing To Be Truly Good

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 7 November 2012]

In an early spy spoof, aging Sir James Bond comes out of retirement to take on SMERSH.

I hate to say that I did not really enjoy this movie. But based on the IMDb rating, I apparently am not alone in that. While I like the idea of a spy spoof, this one just seemed to flop for me. Maybe it was because too many writers and directors were involved, but the plot was too confusing and ran for much too long. Did we need seven James Bonds? No.

Granted, we have a great cast: Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, Woody Allen and others. And some of the jokes were pretty funny. But trying to keep the plot straight was just too difficult.

Bad beyond your wildest dreams

[Pedro_H · 3/10 · 17 October 2002]

A wild James Bond spoof that makes passing references to a genuine Ian Fleming novel.

Hard to know where to start with this movie. The producers, through a freak accident, gained the rights to a real James Bond novel, but were too cowardly/incompetent to make a real James Bond and came up with this cowardly cop-out.

This is the sixties, throw lots of things at the screen: Stars, tricks, expensive sets, ad-libs, multi-directors, chase scenes, music videos, etc. and you are sure to hit something. What is amazing is that even with a machine gun they cannot hit a thing, although Woody Allen does have one funny scene!

There is nothing to string this movie together, one scene doesn't have anything to do with the last. There is no plot and actors work in their own bubble. Several stars (Allen for one) claim they have never even seen the movie. Join them.

2 hours and ten minutes of pain

[solitaryman2004 · 1/10 · 15 August 1999]

Please do not waste your time with this movie. Do not be fooled by the star-filled cast. Except for scenes by Woody Allen, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It moves slowly, it makes little sense, the jokes are un-funny, the acting is mediocre. I rented this movie because a friend (now, I wonder) recommended it. Save your time. You have been warned. Peter Sellers, David Niven, Orson Welles, and Woody A. all film geniuses, but all their talent can not save this sucker. Arrest the director and writer for felonious assault on good cinema!

This was Fun

[jameswatson-84069 · 7/10 · 12 March 2021]

So,it has several directors and lacks a coherent storyline.But,it has several funny moments and a fine cast.And plenty of glamorous women.Loved Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond,in particular.I enjoyed it.

Ouch!

[Meatfarmer · 1/10 · 7 December 2002]

What a horrible, horrible film!!!

"Casino Royale" must truly be one of the worst films ever created. At least it must be the worst ever misuse of a great cast: Peter Sellers, David Niven, Woody Allen, Orson Welles, Deborah Kerr...

Some bad films actually become tolerable or even funny just because they are so bad. "Casino Royale" cannot even accomplish that. It is just an embarrassing failure to tell a lame, confused story about a lot of people named James Bond.

This is more like a Pink Panther movie than a Bond film. That is not a bad thing

[canttouchtype · 7/10 · 11 February 2022]

This is an absurd, 1960s psychedelic comedy. It's closer to movies like Travels with My Aunt, A Hard Days Night, and Dr. Strangelove than it is to Dr. No, Goldfinger, and You Only Live Twice.

When placed in the context of 1960s British comedy, this film shines. It's nonsensical, shiny, and full of dry humor. People in the reviews talk about wasted talent, but make no mistake: no one in this movie had any illusions they were making anything other than a silly comedy.

If you can't make fun of Bond, this is not a movie you'll enjoy. But if you approach it as a fan parody and a bizarro acid trip, it's good for a laugh.

Too silly, even for the 1960s.

[Kobalt44 · 2/10 · 15 April 2007]

In the 1960s when satirical, parodying silliness was all the rage, particularly the parodying or satirising of spies and espionage during the Cold War of the 60s, Casino Royale appears in 1967 as a 'swinging' movie version of Ian Fleming's book of the same name, which was originally published in 1952 or 53 if my memory is right. But this film simply does not work. The swinging sixties' version of the book is about as silly as it can get with absolutely no art in its silliness. Its attempts at comedic surrealism were in vain.

The other Bond films up to the Casino Royale of 1967 starring the softly-spoken, Scottish James Bond everyone liked were cleverly satirical and ironic with Sean Connery delivering his lines with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek and a wry smile on his lips. And the iconic 60s' t.v. series that hilariously sent up glamour spies and espionage, Get Smart, was not only cleverly satirical but an exceedingly artful parody bordering on pure genius with Don Adams and the supporting cast saying their inspired lines written by the likes of Buck Henry with perfect timing and delivery. But Casino Royale, an 'unofficial' Bond film and the first to use the name without starring Sean Connery, is just silly for the sake of silliness with practically no redeeming features (see below).

I have seen Casino Royale probably three times since 1967, including at the pictures during its Australian release back then, and with each viewing it gets worse. A couple of months of ago it was screened on commercial t.v. here on a Saturday night, I think it was, and about fifteen minutes' worth of it was all I could take. Even for one as nostalgic for the 60s as I am, Casino Royale was too much for one viewer, this one.

A big-name cast doing and saying silly unfunny things with pretty, mini-skirted girls with the Mary Quant look scattered round rural and urban Britain are simply not enough to make a film effective anymore, if they ever were. Indeed, so averse am I to watching the 1967 version of Casino Royale, I am even put off going to see the current version of the film of the same title. However, I take comfort from the fact that no matter how silly and bad the remade version of Casino Royale may possibly be, it just cannot be as silly and bad as the film made in 1967.

PS. I've given it two stars out of ten for Burt Bacharach's memorable theme music for Casino Royale and Herb Alpert's marvellous trumpet playing of that theme. The music was the best aspect of the entire movie. All right, then! 1967's Casino Royale may have one redeeming feature.

Great giggly nostalgia from stellar cast

[thehumanduvet · 8/10 · 12 October 2000]

I can't believe how many people have posted such negative comments about this film - those who try to compare it with the serious Bond series are as witless as those who find the plot too complicated for their tiny little minds. I saw this first when I was about 12 years old, and it seemed clear enough to me then - there are some baddies, and the goodies have to stop them. With some gags and lots of style.

OK maybe with maturity I can see it has dated a little, some scenes may drag a bit and a few people may be offended by the sixties outlook on life, but hey whadda you expect from a sixties film? What it boils down to is a series of comic vignettes featuring just about every famous face in the movies at the time, bringing Sellers and Niven together again after the first Pink Panther movie, which practically founded the whole crazy sixties anything-goes genre, of which this is the pinnacle and epitome. Set to some fabulous tunes and on a collection of extraordinary sets, dozens of master mirthmakers perform a loopy little dance around the plot of Fleming's novel (this film actually contains a lot more of the novel it is named after than most of the "proper" Bond series). Some of the faces only feature for a few moments (Peter O'Toole's part is tiny, for one), others, like Sellers, Allen, Niven and Welles, do enough to create truly memorable characters despite the frantic pace of much of the film (I still cannot think of Welles' face without those scary shades). Sellers does his multi-talented thing as usual, Niven plays Bond to a tee as the quintessential unflappable Englishman (his screen persona provided much of the inspiration when Fleming created Bond), and Allen plays his nervy, sexmad little stereotype as well as in any of his own films.

I can see that this will not appeal to some people, but anyone who can lighten up, enjoy a little silliness and appreciate that 60s sense of humour will find this a hilarious jaunt round the spy genre. If you do like it, check the other installments in this classic period for Sellers - What's New Pussycat, After the Fox, the Wrong Box and of course, the awesome Magic Christian. Beats the pants off yer Austin Powers any day of the week.

Incoherent, but quite amusing

[bakchu · 6/10 · 16 July 2004]

During the first 30-45 minutes, you might be worried by the incomprehensible plot consisting of not very amusing scenes. If you endure this, it's getting better - not plot-wise, but there is a nice handful of insanely funny ideas. All loosely put together; I suppose having five directors hasn't helped much - still, it can be quite amusing, especially if you are slightly intoxicated.

Yes, this is a film for drunken people. Made by drunken people as well, one could think. The good actors are wasted. Towards the end the putting-together of random things gets that utterly licentious that it nearly reaches a Monty-Pythonesque quality, which I like, so I rate the movie still 6 out of 10 for this state of brash freedom in its second half.

A jaw-dropping disaster (SPOILERS)

[A_Friend_of_Sarah_Connor · 1/10 · 2 November 2007]

Before getting to the actual review of the film, a word of warning: 1967's "Casino Royale" has nothing to do with the superior 2006 adaptation of Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel. In fact, it's not part of Eon Productions "official" series of films because it was made without any input from the producers at the time, Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Salzman. Unfortunately, that's not the only reason that it's largely been forgotten by mainstream audiences; it probably has more to do with the fact that the film (a term I use very loosely because the plot is so episodic) is almost unwatchable.

When asked to name a spy spoof, most people usually think of Mike Myers' "Austin Powers" series or "Die Another Day" (sorry, turns out that's an "official" entry in the Bond franchise). But predating Mr. Myers' and his "unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanisms" was this movie, produced by Charles K. Feldman and directed by no less than 5 people (that right there should be an indicator of the movie's quality). Since Feldman had little to no chance against the official series if he was to make a "straight" adaptation of the 1953 book, he decided to produce a film that was the exact opposite: a spoof that parodied the exaggerated ridiculousness of the Bond films. I can appreciate this--I enjoy the "Austin Powers" movies because they're clever and sometimes hysterical. The problem with "Casino Royale" isn't just that it's not in the least coherent, but that it's just not funny.

Surprisingly, the first ten minutes of exposition sets up a good situation. The real Sir James Bond (David Niven) is enjoying his retirement from the Secret Service when agents all over the world start dying. M (or McTarry, who knows?), played by John Huston, calls on Bond to find out what's going on. He refuses, and for some reason, his mansion is blown to smithereens and I believe M dies (since he's absent for the rest of the movie and I read somewhere that he does. I obviously couldn't have gotten this while watching the movie, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention). The remainder of the movie easily explains why marijuana is recommended while viewing, with scenes making little sense and everyone being codenamed 'James Bond' by the end.

Most of the film plays out like an extended, recent episode of "Saturday Night Live". The scenes in the McTarry Mansion are especially dreadful and tiresome, adding nothing to the plot except 15 minutes of unfunny padding, while the Casino Royale, which is where the movie gets it's title from, is shoehorned into the script and only seems like an excuse to have Orson Welles show up and play Le Chiffre in a less than interesting gambling scene. But nothing compares to one of the most bizarre and ludicrous endings I've ever seen. And you've guessed it, it's painfully unfunny and cringe-inducing.

Believe it or not, buried within this mess are three things that save the movie from getting a big fat zero. Half a star goes to the musical score by Burt Bacharach, which is a breezy soundtrack that fits the sporadic nature of what's unfolding on screen. The other half goes to the amazing cast, which includes Niven, Welles, Huston, Peter Sellers, George Raft, Jacqueline Bisset, Deborah Kerr, Woody Allen, a cameo by Peter O'Toole and (according to IMDb) an appearance by the then unknown David Prowse. On top of that, there's apparently 7 actors that could be found in an official Bond movie: Ursula Andress, Angela Scoular, Vladek Sheybal, John Hollis, Burt Kwouk, Caroline Munro, and Milton Reid. So it's too bad that everyone, especially Allen, seems to be doing what ever they want. Finally, the auction scenes are the best in the movie, not that they follow any logical narrative, but because they offered the only chuckles during the entire running time, which is 130 minutes too long. The only other times that I was laughing was at the ineptness of every other production value.

With a small army of writers and directors, it's hardly a surprise that the plot (or plots) is/are uneven, characters switch sides without reason, and every joke/gag falls flat on it's face because of poor timing. The point of a comedy is to make us laugh, which is what something like the "Scary Movie" films succeed in. I bring them up because while they have the same scatter-brained humor of "Casino Royale", at least you can actually follow what's going on! The troubles that plagued the production, including Peter Sellers being fired before he finished shooting and the budget going way out of control, prove how durable the Bond series is, because "Casino Royale" still managed to rake in some money. Just goes to show how such a misfire like this, along with every criminal mastermind, cannot kill our favorite spy. 1/10