It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Indeed. How about a remake of Diamonds Are Forever?
His advice isn't wasted anyway I thought it was Mr Dragon? :))
Glad to hear it. Stick around.
As for the 1954 TV play, I simply have to see it every now and then because of Peter Lorre! I set up a fan page in his honor on Facebook (737 Likes at last count).
DAD is poor but come on not as bad as this surely?
The 1960's where a crazy time for Bond fans. The Sean Connery movies had been hugely successful and in the 6/7 years since launching they had successfully stirred a massive phenomenon around the world. This fact didn't go unnoticed in Hollywood and numerous parties tried to replicate EON's series with varying degrees of success. 'Bond' was big business in the '60's and inevitably a conveyer belt of copy-cats followed. This issue has far from subsided to this day as new trends always appear and disappear in Hollywood (the recent one seems to be anything 'superhero' related after the success of the 'Iron Man' and 'Avengers' films). 'Casino Royale' is therefore something of a curiosity as the film is a parody to the zeitgeist's main cultural influence however it also happens to be strictly related to the origins of why espionage fiction became so popular: Ian Fleming.
The film itself is something of mess. The narrative and film is incoherent, overly long with the meandering episodic nature of the plot becoming increasingly distracting. The film sets up the idea of SMERSH being the villains of the piece with Sir James being brought out of retirement to take them on after numerous agents have been killed. The idea is then abruptly dropped and never really dealt with again. Soon Bond is off to M's old Scottish estate and the film at this point grinds to a halt. However, after he first confusing 30mins numerous sub-plots begin to be developed - one involving Mata Bond and the other involving Evelyn Tremble. However, at no point do any of these other storylines converge together. Had the film been a brisk 1hr 30mins a lot of the issues would likely have been paved over but the fact that it drags on for over 2hrs 10mins just makes the problems even more evident. By the time the film reaches it's third act you can almost sense the producers and directors giving up and are throwing 'everything-and-the-kitchen-sink' at the screen.
Five different directors worked on CR and this fact is so evident in the film as the one thing the film really lacks is a clear singular voice. Tonally and stylistically the film is all over the place. The fact that many of the directors did not work in tandem is also evident as each story-thread almost play out like mini-movies inside one big film. Surely there had to be a point where all parties involved must have realised how off-course they had truly veered?
Charles Feldman said in interviews leading up the film's release that 'Casino Royale' was a "producer's film". From looking at the finished product it would seem that Feldman was a producer who liked to orchestrate chaos. In the past Feldman has tried to make a film in a similar manner called "Battle Cry". Just like CR he had a glitzy cast including the likes of Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall and Gary Cooper, and he hoped to film different segments with a number of big name directors. The studio later shut down the film after production had begun as costs had already spiralled out of control. You would have thought this experience would have deterred Feldman from attempting a similar escapade? Alas it was not, the experience took it's toll on Feldman and he later had a heart attack during filming CR (something he attributed to the stress Peter Sellers's erratic behaviour evoked).
While CR has been accused of being a 'disaster'; many have referred to the film as a 'comedy' and have compared it to the 'serious' Bond films being produced by EON. However, its interesting how quite how much of a cautionary tale Feldman's CR truly is. CR shone a light on where the Bond franchise was gradually developing to; suggesting the inevitable bloat that would eventually become very recognisable within the 'official' series. After all it was only a matter of months later that 'You Only Live Twice' came out in cinemas and in many regards both of 1967's Bond films share a lot in common (also when you think about it the 'unofficial' Bond film released stayed much closer to it's original Fleming source material).
Feldman's 'Casino Royale' itself is packed to the steams almost to the point of bursting. There are a number of odd things littered throughout the film - a chimpanzee, a seal, a flying roulette table, cowboys, UFOs in Trafalgar Square, Hitler, Woody Allen, etc. The film is terribly indulgent for instance everything that can blow up does blow up and all the females characters (and background players) seem all to be beauty-queen material. There is no point where this film really comes together. However, despite being everything a film should not be, there is something charming about the chaos being placed on screen. The finale is insane but I couldn't help but enjoy myself throughout it as I've never seen something quite so bizarre and off-the-wall. Often throughout the film I actually found myself enjoying the sheer ridiculous OTT nature of the piece. Often I found myself saying aloud; "Really?" "Are they really going down this road?" and finally "Surely they don't think they can get away with this?" But as an operation into excess the film is very successful.
In addition, there are a few segments where the film comes together fantastically. The first I can recall is the infamous 'Look of Love' scene - it's very well shot segment; it's romantic, evocative and very stylish. Furthermore, Mata Bond's introductory dance is very well shot and looks brilliant. These two moments I think really elevated the film and were images that really stuck with me after watching the film. The production design and style of the film is a further aspect which has stood the test of time and the film has a very sexy polished feel to it.
The film in the most part doesn't really have any greater aspirations than being a mere parody of the successful James Bond stories that preceded it. In the most part this idea comes together enjoyably; for instance with David Niven's reformed 007 - here we have a celibate James Bond who has put his old lifestyle of spying, drinking and womanising behind him and as a result has developed a stammer (huh?). It's a rather cheeky riff on the audience's conception of Bond and works well. Furthermore, I liked the talk surrounding the term 'spy' now being synonymous with 'sex manic' and how all the top-agents around the world have been killed because by beautiful female enemy-spies. On the other hand, other ideas such as 'Dr. Noah', the excessive amounts of lethal female beauties and the new Fashion-designer-esque Q don't quite work. Compared to say the Austin Powers films, CR doesn't really 'nail' the Bond films quite as well as it could have. However, it did have only 4 films to really riff off at that point.
The film actually is at it's best during the Mata Bond segment mainly because the 'parody' angle is softened and in turn the film gains a much more biting satire edge. When Mata arrives in West Berlin we see the fun and debauchery happening behind the wall but when the camera lingers we see the Russians are having no fun. In addition, the Soviet side of the wall has a fantastic overbearing red-light and the music takes an ominous turn. Furthermore, the actual segment is very well designed with the SMERSH training-building looking as though it has been influenced by German expressionism and a Tim Burton nightmare.
The auction scene is also great as once again the lighting contrast between the allies and the Russians works to great effect. Furthermore, the satire element is strengthened as we see the Americans disagreeing with the Russian for the sheer sake of it and British happy to just be invited. It all comes to a head perfectly when a 'war' breaks out between all parties. Had the film continued in this vein for it's entire runtime it would have been a much more entertaining and sophisticated piece owing more of a debt to works such as Kubrick's 'Dr Strangelove', however this idea like many others in this film is quickly established only later to be abandoned.
The film itself is an ensemble piece and as a result does lack the presence of a central figure or leading-man. Bond films works in the most part because they hinge on there main actor, in the case of CR there is no 'Sean Connery' or 'Daniel Craig' keeping the thing from falling apart. However, the ensemble in the most part is good. David Niven is a wonderful and fun presence seemingly personifying charm. I did enjoy how each time he appears in a new scene Niven is given a complete outfit change - also props must be given to the man for pulling off a turban. Orson Welles is also a commanding screen presence and is great in his small role - it's a shame we never got to see a more serious interpretation of his Le Chiffre. Woody Allen is also funny in his role and his court-marshall scene is one of the film's more amusing segments. However, Peter Sellers is something of a let-down; his behaviour on the production has been well documented but there seems to be a lack of energy evident in his performance.
While 'Casino Royale' is a mess of a movie and has been described as the 'anti-auter work of all time' there is a certain charm to it's madness. However, no mistake should be made, the film is a mis-step and is possibly one of the most indulgence and chaotic movies made not only in terms of its production history but also narratively.
Thank you I appreciate it.
I do see the similarities in CR to the later excess of not only the Moore films but also the latter Brosnan era. There is a fair amount of CR67 to be found in YOLT, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, OP and DAD to be honest.
In this sense it's arguable that the 70's and 80's 'official' Bond films were more akin to works of self-parody.
Yes, you've certainly got a point there when you say that it has nothing to do with James Bond. I mean, it doesn't even work as a spoof of James Bond, such is its monumental failure. Instead, it's something of a madcap 1960s psychadelic film with some references to James Bond sprinked on the top like chocolate sprinkles, but a James Bond spoof, much less a James Bond film, that does not make. See Jeremy Duns new e-book on Amazon called Rogue Royale for the serious Bond film a 1960s version of Casino Royale could have been. More's the pity this never came to pass.
http://shatterhand007.com/MadRoyale/ItsAMadMadRoyale.html
I think all those planning to watch Cr either for the first time or again should really read this article through first. It shines a light on a lot of details.
That really looks very interesting, @Pierce2Daniel. I've saved that and I really look forward to reading that some time later.