Casino Royale (1967)

Directed by: Val Guest, Ken Hughes, John Huston, Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish | 126 minutes | action, comedy, adventure | Actors: Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, David Niven, Orson Welles, Joanna Pettet, Daliah Lavi, Woody Allen, Deborah Kerr, William Holden, Charles Boyer, John Huston, Kurt Kasznar, George Raft, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Terence Cooper, Barbara Bouchet, Angela Scoular, Gabriella Licudi, Tracey Crisp, Elaine Taylor, Jacqueline Bisset, Anjelica Huston, Peter O’Toole, David Prowse

‘Casino Royale’ was the only James Bond story for which Albert Broccoli was late buying the rights. Charles Feldman bought it in 1953, long before Sean Connery took the silver screen as the most famous secret agent in 1962. Seeing the commercial success of the James Bond franchise, Feldman decided to make his own Bond film. He approached Connery, but was unable to meet his $1 million salary demand. Partly because of this – and because he realized that it was probably not possible to match the success of the official Bond films after all – he decided to make a Bond comedy.

It is incomprehensible that no fewer than five directors and ten (of which three are official) script writers have been recruited for this project. Everyone must have been able to feel that this ensures that it becomes an incoherent whole. It has become a mixed product that feels more like a number of separate sketches than there is a line in it. Although there are very nice scenes and nice finds, the humor is nowhere to be found. And that is painful for a film that can hide behind no other genre than a comedy. Characters are introduced and then nowhere to be seen, and one of the most notable inconsistencies is the haircut change of Mata Bond, the daughter of James and Mata Hari(!). In the beginning she still had beautiful blond locks, after her kidnapping she suddenly has a short haircut.

The cast is a huge collection of celebrities who were certainly, but not only, big names in the 1960s. Peter Sellers does a good job as Evelyn Tremble/James Bond, repeating some of his familiar screen tricks, such as his wacky accents. Orson Welles (Le Chiffre) entertains with his magic tricks and his presence at all. David Niven also convinces as the original James Bond with a stiff upper lip and his aversion to everything that now characterizes his namesake: the women, the gadgets and lifestyle. If it turns out in the beginning that this 007 leads a celibate existence, which is, after all, the ultimate James Bond parody, that bodes well for the rest of the film. Unfortunately, this promise is not kept. A very young Woody Allen is also well cast as James Bond’s nephew, Jimmy Bond. His neurotic character creates a few slightly comical situations, bizarre though they are. With such an impressive roster of talented actors, it’s all the more wry that ‘Casino Royale’ has become such a failure.

It is a pity that no more effort has been made to make the separate parts fit together better. This could have been a big improvement. While a plot in a parody like this is of minor importance, this film feels too chaotic and fragmented and fails to hold the viewer’s attention for long. The scenes are too long-winded and it comes across as one long trip on bad drugs. Visually, though, the film is worth watching. There are beautiful Bond ladies in it, including Ursula Andress as Vesper Lynd, Joanna Pettet as Mata Bond and Barbara Bouchet as Moneypenny. Even a very young Jacqueline Bisset can be admired – albeit briefly. The psychedelic look of the film is funny, with the scene in the bunker of Dr. Noah as one of the highlights. The decors look well cared for. The music of ‘Casino Royale’ also does the film a lot of good, Burt Bacharach even received an Oscar nomination for his song ‘The Look of Love’, performed by Herb Alpert and Dusty Springfield. Unfortunately, the acting, the music and the well-shot scenes don’t hide the fact that ‘Casino Royale’ is just a bad – and also way too long – movie.

When the final of the film finally approaches, you can give up hope that it will be okay, because the ending of the film is even more ridiculous and absurd than the 120 minutes that precede it. ‘Casino Royale’ may still be interesting from a historical point of view, but you really don’t miss anything if you decide not to watch it.