Bond being Bond?
When James Bond doesn’t want to come out of retirement, he is pretty much forced to after the death of M. Taking over MI6, he issues several different Bonds into the field, one being a very clueless man named…. James Bond. His purpose? To play Le Chiffre, a rich mastermind, in a game of baccarat. If he stops Le Chiffre, he helps to stop the evil organization SMERSH.
While hitting the nail on the head in some areas, especially the gadgets that Bond is known for, the rest of the movie is very disorganized and broken. I like comedies, don’t get me wrong, but when you can’t really follow one for nearly two-hours because it’s more sketch than feature, well you have a bit of a problem. The story is a bit tough to follow, but it does have several references to the book and main story, but certainly liberties were taken to create it. What I’m most confused with about this movie is why MGM didn’t take the book and create something serious? I get that maybe it would have been different than the other films, and possibly Sean Connery was tied up with the other Bond films, but it certainly doesn’t make sense how this all worked out. It’s an average comedy at best, but it probably worked very well in 1967. It just doesn’t work well, other than the fact that it’s neat to see similarities.
As for the casting, wow! You have a very impressive list. You have Peter Sellers as James Bond, David Niven as Sir James Bond, Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond and Orson Welles as Le Chiffre. That casting alone makes the film worthwhile. Sellers is hilarious, s the quick-witted, dumb-founded James Bond. Yes, I realize I just called him witty and dumb, it makes sense in the film, though he disappears, reappears and disappears (due to his firing). Orson Welles is certainly departed himself as Le Chiffre, because no one knew (especially me) that he could be funny. The magic tricks, while not making a lick of sense, are humorous. As for David Niven, he just doesn’t play a good Bond. He’s old, weak and is so far from convincing. Finally, Woody Allen… how…. why? He’s still funny as hell.
It’s not the worst comedy I’ve seen, mind you, but just know that it certainly isn’t the funniest. It’s around average, if it was a bit more cohesive on the storyline part, it would have been even better. All comedies need plot points that connect in some way. This one desperately needed them.
How to make sense out of nothing
It was preserved well; I’ll give it that. For a movie that is nearly 40 years old, it looks and sounds great on DVD. With that said, thank goodness for the features. Without the features this movie may not have a good explanation. First, it explains why Casino Royale wasn’t a serious film. Why the direction of the film was pointing the way it was pointing. It gives you reasoning for the film, for the actors, for everything. It was more interesting than the actual film, which says something about the film and the featurette. This film is worse than my review says so, according to the featurettes.
Here’s what you get:
• Commentary with James Bond historians Steven Jay Rubin and John Cork
• The Making of Casino Royale
• Bond, James Bond?
• A 3 Ring Circus
• More Directors, More Stars
• The Big Climax
• It’s a Wrap!
• Theatrical Trailer
• Photo Gallery