Casino Royale (1967)

At one time or another, “Casino Royale,” released in 1967, must have had a schedule to film, a script and a story. If any one of those three elements were in here, this would have been made into a good movie.

All the while, the version we got is a pure example of what can happen when everyone working on a film goes insane at the same time.

Lines and scenes are made up right on the spot. Roger Ebert noted, “Skillful cutting builds up the suspense between two parallel plots -- but, alas, the parallel plots never converge.” Doesn’t matter since that is forgotten. Actors from the late Peter O’Toole to Jean-Paul Belmondo are thrown into the movie. Peter Sellers, finally free from every trace of discipline goes completely bonkers.

This has got to be the most easy-going film ever made. There is no holds barred. Ebert said, “Consistency and planning must have seemed the merest whimsy.” You can think the directors (there were five, all working on their own) coming into work and thinking what they were going to film that day. How could they lose? They had so much money, because this film was given the powerful name of James Bond.

Maybe that was the problem. Ebert noted, “When Charles Feldman bought the screen rights for "Casino Royale" from Ian Fleming back in 1953, nobody had heard of James Bond, or Sean Connery for that matter. But by the time Feldman got around to making the movie, Connery was firmly fixed in the public imagination as the redoubtable 007. What to do?”

Ebert went on to say, “Feldman apparently decided to throw all sanity overboard instead of one Bond, he determined to have five or six.” What we got here is David Niven playing Sir James Bond. He is summoned out of retirement to go up against SMERSH.

Sadly, we don’t know what is going on. Other Bonds are made right in front of us. Ebert said, “Peter Sellers is the baccarat-playing Bond.” He meets Le Chiffre, played by the late Orson Welles, in a baccarat game. Why? We don’t get an explanation.

The five directors were told only to film their own segments, according to everyone, and no one knew what the other directors were doing. We can clearly see that.

There are some nice moments, though. Comedian, writer, filmmaker and musician Woody Allen barely is not funny, and the magnificent presence of Welles make you want Le Chiffre to have been taken seriously.

Sadly, the positive elements are very often lost in the chaotic switching back and forth between camera shots. The steadiness of Terence Young, who made the original Bond films likable despite their tricks, is completely missing here.

Ebert said, “I suppose a film this chaotic was inevitable.” There has been a stain of these desultory comedies, usually starring Sellers, Allen, and/or Jonathan Winters, where the idea is to show how crazy and smart everyone is when he doesn’t follow the script and ad-libs right in front of everyone.

However, comedies are understatements in just about every way better than extra.

Ebert noted, “Sellers was the funniest comedian in the movies when he was making those lightly directed low-budget pictures like "I'm All Right, Jack." Now he is simply self-infatuated and wearisome. And so are the movies he graces.”

If only Charlie Feldmen had took some time to think, early on when first working on this film, and said that everyone simply had to get their heads on straight and think clearly.

To be completely honest with everyone, this shouldn’t even be counted as a James Bond movie. There is nothing in here that falls into the category of anything good that James Bond does in his movies. Everything is sorely missing. It feels like they were trying to be like “The Benny Hill Show,” but I wouldn’t know since I never saw that. I know that this was non-EON produced, but I still wanted to count it for this month. Just don’t watch at all, you can safely skip this one, it’s the worst in the franchise, hands down.

Well, check in tomorrow for a much better movie in “James Bond Month.”