LoginIt is better not to think of this film as an official Bond film, because even if it was meant to be, it doesn't feel like one. If anything, it feels like a disjointed spy caper and as a spoof it is one with pluses and minuses.
Casino Royale does have its good points. The locations, costumes, photography and Bond girls look wonderful, even if the editing isn't as good. The music is rousing enough with a brilliant song sung by Dusty Springfield, the opening and closing sequences are memorable, the idea is great, there are some funny bits and there is a great cast, although the performances themselves are uneven. David Niven is amusing, Orson Welles is a good find, Ursula Andress is very sexy and beautiful and Woody Allen provides some of the more funnier moments though these moments are almost too brief to savour properly.
The rest of the cast don't give bad performances or anything, but the material they got should have been better. Peter Sellers's talents in my opinion are not put to good use, there are times when he is funny but there are other times where he does little more than ad libs and he does overdo it occasionally, while some of the cameos are wasted and that includes John Huston as M, who coincidentally is one of the directors of Casino Royale.
What hurt Casino Royale though was the length and the pace. It was much too long and there are some parts that move along at a snail's pace. The film also feels bloated, there are too many characters and the film should have had about three less directors than it did. The film does start off well, but then it becomes very silly, overblown and pointless. The script is weak, with the occasional funny moment outweighed by the too silly, unfunny moment sadly, while the plot meanders all over the place and is very hard to follow and the action while not bad is rather overblown.
Overall, I can see why Casino Royale is seen as a love it/hate it movie. As for me, I had very mixed feelings on this film, and while not terrible, it is disjointed and bloated that is saved by the production values, music and some of the cast. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Casino Royale Reviews
Disjointed affair, with some good moments
Posted : 2 years, 10 months ago on 18 July 2022 10:14
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Casino Royale review
Posted : 11 years, 9 months ago on 30 August 2013 11:20
For God's sake, it is a spoof!
Funny thing about spoofs: they are made to make fun of things, stories and cliches. So do not expect this movie to put forward intelligent questions.
That being said, I watched this movie for Peter Sellers mostly. It was a disappointment that he showed up almost half way through the movie and then was suddenly killed.
This movie was made in almost 12 million dollars; huge amount of money and was doomed from the start. Peter acted very unprofessionally and would not go to sets on week at end. There were 6 directors who ended up shooting and got fired for one reason or another. Peter refused to share screen with Orson and overall well it was a very bad production time. That is why when I watched the movie I went with zero expectations. There are some times, where you can see that crew and studio did put up an effort to make it legit but script had little problems here and there and overall it doesn't glue well together but nonetheless I enjoyed my time watching it and if you are a peter Sellers fan then it will be fun to see him acting in a romantic lead. :D something different.
Enjoy the 60s movie charm with silly charades. :)
Funny thing about spoofs: they are made to make fun of things, stories and cliches. So do not expect this movie to put forward intelligent questions.
That being said, I watched this movie for Peter Sellers mostly. It was a disappointment that he showed up almost half way through the movie and then was suddenly killed.
This movie was made in almost 12 million dollars; huge amount of money and was doomed from the start. Peter acted very unprofessionally and would not go to sets on week at end. There were 6 directors who ended up shooting and got fired for one reason or another. Peter refused to share screen with Orson and overall well it was a very bad production time. That is why when I watched the movie I went with zero expectations. There are some times, where you can see that crew and studio did put up an effort to make it legit but script had little problems here and there and overall it doesn't glue well together but nonetheless I enjoyed my time watching it and if you are a peter Sellers fan then it will be fun to see him acting in a romantic lead. :D something different.
Enjoy the 60s movie charm with silly charades. :)
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Half a star is too much
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 14 April 2013 03:39
This is definitely the worst film I've ever seen. I wanted a funny Peter Sellers movie, nope, he doesn't show up until over half way through this sloggishly long piece of absolute shit, and even then, he isn't given anything to work with. This film is really just uncomprehensable. The imdb description tells me it's supposed to be about a retired james Bond. You wouldn't have gathered that by watching the movie. I can't really put into words the complete awfulness of this film. There are amazing Peter Sellers movies, this is not one of them. In fact, I refuse to believe he was actually in this movie. 0/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Casino Ripoff
Posted : 17 years, 5 months ago on 22 December 2007 07:08
If I could have given this zero stars I would have. I actually had to turn it off half way through, I couldn't take the fact that Peter Sellers and Orson Welles would stoop so low to break such a magnificent franchise.
0 comments, Reply to this entry