Casino royale 1967 dvd
Top critical review
Critical reviews›
3.0 out of 5 starsMissed opportunity.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 7 December 2021
A James Bond spoof with a fabulously talented cast including Peter Sellers, David Niven, Orson Wells, Woody Allen and Ursula Andres, a big budget Hollywood extravaganza, five talented directors taking on different parts of the film, music by Burt Bacharach and some wonderful sixties production design. So what do you get, you get a near unwatchable mess of near biblical proportions with occasional moments of fun. The very sad thing about Casino Royale is that it could have worked, it could have been genuinely funny, it could have ended up a true comedy classic if more focused minds had been in charge of the production. With a disciplined and talented team it could so easily have been far more successful than it eventually was.
By 1967 the popular Bond films were ripe for a big budget parody as there had already been quite a few cheaply made ones released starring the likes of James Coburn and Dean Martin which had been quite successful. All the elements were there ready to be exploited, over the top performances, silly gadgets, an overly complicated and goofy plot, car chases, explosions, beautiful girls, stylish sets, punchy dialogue and some exciting set pieces. However for some pretty obvious reasons, the odd high points are almost completely drowned out by a dead in the water script and a scattershot screenplay that regularly strays between nonsensical and downright ridiculous.
The other problem is of course, five separate and very different directors, all with different ideas and styles, trying to make something that is not only uniquely theirs, but that will also mesh with the other visions, and at least three screenwriters. These facts are of course problematic because it adds an extra level of complexity to the production.
It's quite clear that some interconnecting tissue between scenes are obviously missing and the narrative doesn't flow organically as it should, but jumps uncomfortably from place to place asking the audience to make sense of it. Players just appear in new locations or different never seen before sets in different costumes with no explanation of where they are or how they got there. The last twenty minutes is so tenuously connected together that you wonder what anyone, especially the poor editor. was actually thinking. In this section a spaceship turns up, cowboys on horseback appear from who knows where, skydiving native Americans drop in through a glass roof complete with feather headdresses, Tomahawks and perform a rain dance. A huge fight scene ensues that goes on forever and it's topped off with a huge explosion. The final shot of all the players dressed in white playing harps in heaven caps off twenty minutes of cinematic mayhem with no rhyme or reason for being.
And these issues are really the rub, there is no single vision here, there are about eight different ones all trying to shine brighter than the others. Rather than complimenting each other these different voices actually highlight how different they all are. What you inevitably end up with is three of four very different films mixed together in a cinematic blender and thrown at the screen hoping some of it sticks. Of course I am sure there are some who believe that this was the original intention all along, it's supposed to be a wacky, zany, psychedelic slice of sixties absurdist silliness and was never meant to make any sense. However if you take some individual sections you can clearly see that attempts were made to give the film a narrative coherence, scenes follow on from one another, consequences follow actions and a story of sorts sometimes emerges. But these sections are brief and are lost amongst all the chaos surrounding them.
Whilst watching you do get the feeling that telling a coherent story that makes at least some narrative sense and that audiences could follow didn't last long in the makers minds. I suspect the whole overly complicated production got so mired in the huge logistical difficulties that eventually everybody just gave up on the project and a film was eventually cobbled together with what was already in the can. The original vision (if there ever was one) was quickly lost under the productions ponderous weight and no single individual had the power or the inclination to sort it all out. Although often pilloried, Hollywood studio executives were not all dummies and I suspect they soon discovered how bad this puppy was going to be. A freight train of a film with a broken dead mans' switch careering out of control comes to mind with the inevitable crash that usually follows.
The purely technical aspects such as lighting photography, locations, sets, costumes, special effects, editing etc. are competent enough and are probably the best part of the whole experience. The performances, even from the normally dependable Peter Sellers, Woody Allen and David Niven are mediocre at best. By wholeheartedly embracing the spoof vibe many of the performances are either stilted or overblown and do the film no favours at all. I suspect that many of the artists soon realised they were making a pile of garbage and phoned in their performances, collected their cheques and moved on to the next job as soon as possible. Sellers from all accounts did not complete filming his scenes and refused to come back to the set if Orson Wells was already there. This might in part explain the missing “bits” mentioned above. Behaviour like this was apparently not unusual. There are quite a few uncredited cameos that I will not spoil for you as I enjoyed looking out for them, however one from a very drunk sounding Peter O'Toole was short (a few seconds) but rather fun and perhaps reflects the unprofessional nature of the whole production.
So depending on your point of view you're either going to get a 126 minute depressing and muddled example of Hollywood excess or a gloriously silly over the top piece of sixties aesthetic styling dialled up to a hundred. Of course in the end you're either going to love it or hate, it's the kind of film that elicits these extreme emotions and it's highly unlikely to get a “meh” from most people.
Any film from the sixties is going to have issues with race, diversity and sexual politics and Casino Royale is no exception. All of the female roles are essentially nothing more than eye candy for the male gaze and the costumes especially bear that out. Some scenes and dialogue is really quite cringworthy by today's standards and at least highlights how far we have come in terms of representation and equality since it was made fifty four years ago. It's a product of it's time for sure.
Even though I have probably given you the impression that I hated this film, I actually enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. It's not a good film, it's not even a competent film, it could easily be called a pretty bad film and I wouldn't disagree with that. Quite how the producers and all the proven talent involved were able to muck up so badly probably has a lot to do with the points I have raised above, but there are probably many more factors that contributed to what, as a piece of entertainment, is a bit of a disaster. However it's the kind of film that is sometimes referred to as “so bad it's good”. Something doesn't have to be good to be entertaining, it doesn't have to be politically correct to be enjoyable, it doesn't have to be Shakespeare to be gratifying and it certainly doesn't have to mean anything. If you enjoy it that is all that matters. I found it quite funny in parts, interesting in others and a reminder of a different time.
Budgeted at six million dollars it eventually, because of delays and problems on the set, cost between nine and twelve million dollars. The film was a fair financial success, however according to Orson Wells this was simply because of it's rather striking poster of a tattooed naked lady that caught the public's attention and of course the James Bond connection helped. Even though the critical reception was generally muted and sometimes even hostile, it did get praise for the Oscar nominated song “The look of Love”.
The DVD has no extras at all, the transfer is not very crisp and in parts looks a bit ropey but is still perfectly watchable. The sound is perfectly fine if unremarkable. I have heard that the Blu Ray has only a slight improvement in picture and sound quality.
Not very good at all, but as a piece of sixties nostalgia it does have some merit.