The way to understand this film is to remember that the 1967 "Casino Royale" was created by hiring five directors to shoot films with lots of great actors and no script. Then, after realizing they had hours and hours of meaningless junk, one director shot more footage to get the story to make sense -- that included the early scenes in Scotland.
Fun fact: Feldman originally wanted to hire Connery, who said that he'd do the job, but only for 1 million dollars. The former thought it was too much and this was the result. Years later, Feldman told Connery it would've been cheaper just to pay him the money.
As batshit as this entire mess is, the East Berlin spy school really is a masterclass in surreal expressionism; the nightmare behind every door scenario, enforced by in-camera tricks, jarring lighting, and theatrical set design feels like a David Lynch short film
It's easily the best part of the movie, as it is the most coherent and well-rounded : it works as a spy film parody, a German expressionnism parody and a typically British comedy. The trio of lead actors (Pettett, Quayle and Cobbett) could have carried an entire film on their shoulders.
I am now in my 70's and have seen all of the Bond films in the cinema as they were released. This one was the only one where l returned to the cinema for a second viewing . I also bought the sound track to it. In life we all need a good laugh and this provided one. PROFESSOR KEN.
I'm truly amazed that anyone could take this film so seriously! It is quite enjoyable for what it is - a total mess of a time capsule of 60s pop psychedelic images, probably best enjoyed whilst chemically altered. The music by Burt Bacharach is delightful, you get to watch tons of famous actors being incredibly silly, and it's visually quite fun. Peter Sellers walked out part way through, so some of the most perplexing bits are just the producers trying to salvage something of the odd bits of film with him - possibly just him improvising out of character. There is really no point in trying to make sense of it, it's something to sit back and let wash over you if you are in the right mood and took the right substances beforehand.
I honestly feel it isn't all that bogus, then again I like the idea of Connery's Bond being Mason in The Rock, it would explain his escape abilities, the implication that the daughter he visits is not the only one he's had, the ability to quip and even WHY he wasn't bailed out by his Government (Denying all knowledge anyone?) With behaviours seen by Bernard's M in universe explaining such callow actions even to such a prodigal agent, further explaining the change between the 60s and 70s.
@@TheAskTrixieChannel Judi Dench played two different Ms, though. The M from the Brosnan era was Barbara Mawdsley. The M from the Craig era (before Mallory took over) was Olivia Mansfield. And even before that, we see Roger Moore's Bond visit Tracy Bond's grave in For Your Eyes Only, and it's mentioned in the Moore and Dalton films that Bond was previously married. So I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's the same Bond through all those films.
Calvin perfectly captures the bonkers experience of watching Casino Royale 1967. But I can never hate this 30-car-pile-up of a movie. I dunno, blame it on Burt Bacharach.
My mom and I watched this move so many times when I was a little girl! As soon as I hear the music I'm transported. I, too, was more than a little in love with Joanna Pettet. I was heartbroken when she cut her hair.
The extended reviews of this film are among the most entertaining reviews of any films ever made. Partly, that's because in reviews, you only take out little chunks of the film being reviewed - and "Casino Royale" is made of absolutely stellar and iconic chunks. Of course, those chunks fit together in the actual film in a completely haphazard manner - but the chunks themselves are absolutely brilliant. I'll give an example: The "Look of Love" sequence in "Casino Royale" is absolutely astonishing. I might go so far as to say it is the first modern music video, and worlds better than the videos The Beatles were putting out at the same time. But in terms of fitting in with the rest of the film.... it didn't. "Casino Royale" is like walking through a mall, you go to a camera store, then a shoe store, then a jeans shop.... at the end, you've hit everything, but they were all completely different experiences that together created a nice afternoon.
Yep. It is a time period tongue in cheek spoof of Bond films, NOT a real Bond Film. If people look at it that way, it is a great film with a terrific sound track. You want to be smoked up, eating donuts and drinking coffee when watching this.
I would like to note that this travesty cost more to make than every 007 film up to Goldeneye, with the one exception of Moonraker. Truly inexplicable.
Actually "The Look of Love" was nominated for best original song at the Oscars, it did not however win the award, it lost it to "If I Could Talk to the Animals" from Doctor Dolittle. Sorry for nitpicking, but I couldn't let it go by.
I was old enough to remember enough of the 'vibe' of the 60s to grok this film. It's probably one of my favorite Bond films because Peter Sellers is so insane.
Incredible cast, great music score, stunning design, I love this gigantic, bloated, tasteless, piece of s--- trainwreck of a movie. It's fascinating to sit through it and watch it unravel before your very eyes. So, yeah, I love every stupid minute of it.
Same here. I've seen it countless times and yes it's complete nonsense. I've always loved it since my childhood in the 70s. I guess folks from that era kinda get it I suppose. It's not hilarious or filled with belly laughs. It's ZANY. Big difference. It's not that funny but it's FUN. There's a difference. I guess only certain folks get it.
Unironically the bits with Mata Bond infiltrating the Spy School in Berlin is the best part of this movie, just because of how absurd and surreal it is
I love this movie so much ) The cast is full of big stars and amazing , one of my fave parts is the George Raft scene at the end of the flick. ( Raft plays himself ) This movie was a huge financial success at the box office and won an Oscar for the music.
What blew me away was reading that Smersh actually did exist. It was a Russian counter espionage unit which made sure soldiers didn’t retreat during WWII and disbanded around 1945. It is a contraction of Smyert spyonam (spelling?) meaning “death to spies”
this film is like when you're a kid and you threw together all the weirdest combinations of all the food you can find in the house and dare your friends to eat it..
After school, I couldn’t decide on Vegemite, jam or honey in a sandwich so I applied all three, took one bite and vomited immediately. I never did it again.
Kind shame they turned the 1967 Casino Royale movie into spoof when the EON films became success. The film has few moments were you wonder where this film might have gone if they had decided to to make serious 1960's spy film.
Maybe that was the plan when they approached Sean Connery? I was 14 in 1967 when I saw it, and love it to this day. In fact, it is the only James Bond film that I own on DVD.
it's crazy to think that in 1966-1967 EON was all up in arms over Connery and their efforts were a bit stalled ... and to think.. a competent producer could have mounted the production of a Bond film with ANY of the actors who ultimately played Bond.. INCLUDING Connery!
Fun fact: When not adjusted for inflation, this is the lowest grossing film to feature the James Bond character. It even holds a Guinness World Record for it.
I kind of wonder how this movie would have turned out if Blake Edwards was in charge. It could be me but I feel his movie "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" is a Bond parody of sorts. Just take away the fact that Peter Sellers is a Detective instead of a Spy and you have a bond parody.
I just remembered a song that was playing at the end of this movie. It went, "7 James Bonds at Casino Royale..." Sean Connery, David Navin, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Peirce Brosnan, Daniel Craig. It's not inaccurate.
ITV1 here in the UK just showed this film (05/06/2021at 10:20pm) and I have to say that although it's incredibly cheesy, it was a guilty pleasure to watch with a few drinks going and a nice distracter from Covid, plus it's kind of touching that a mainstream channel still shows the film in 2021; an age where most young people have to stay at home, can't be out clubbing and you'd think that the channel wouldn't dream of putting it on for them. Total Respect for them appreciating classic films!
The kicker is...it's implied in this movie that the Connery Bond is Sir James' "replacement". Sir James expresses contempt for his replacement's womanizing ways. Which means...oh, dear Lord, this is where that whole stupid "codename theory" got started! Oh, well, at least this movie gave us "The Look Of Love."
I remember watching this on TV once - the only thing I remember are the bagpipes, the wtf ending and the confusion I felt. I'm happy I'm not the only one who felt completely lost while watching it, you got a new subscriber!
I didn’t get the stone balls and wondered if it is a Scottish thing like caber tossing. I never saw any other reference to it elsewhere. Probably one of many things which didn’t make sense.
Having grown up during the 60's and seen this movie at the theater I can tell you that it was not the script but the names of all the famous actors that made people want to see it. And of course the LSD. LOL
This movie is like the fanfiction I used to plan with my friends in high school. Less a coherent story, more a framing device for gags and jokes, except at some point there are so many bits and unconnected absurd bits that the framing device collapses, and the gags are there in a bid to distract you from that fact.
I still can not fathom why anyone ever tries to do a meaningful 'serious' critique of this brilliant mess of a movie. It is every bit the mess you say it is, and it is widely loved for it. Anyone who hasn't seen it yet, just watch it and decide. But drop any plans to try to compare it to anything else that's ever been made. It's a totally trippy mess that had 5 directors and tons of awesome stars.
18:07 One of the few moments when I genuinely laughed out loud when watching this movie was the little celebration after Orson Welles' magic act in which the different-colored gels appear, because it feels as if the director is openly mocking Orson Welles and his damn magic demands.
It's a fun slapstick film that's the first to take shots at James Bond and spy genre, which is ripe for parody. It's a Monty Python style comedy which is why you may not find it funny. Absurdism is more important the story. It's a place for characters to run wild and they do. Spies, gadgets, hot babes, and villains. What more could you want?
I generally like your reviews, Calvin, and here you start off on the right foot, mentioning your age. It's pertinent. The '60's was rife with inanity, movies & television shows that were filled with a series of running sight gags, non-sequitors & sketches epitomized by the wildly popular tv show Laugh In, which was also created in 1967.Granted, the changing line up of directors, the obvious emnity between Sellers & Welles, the LSD, mescaline, dope-soaked atmosphere of the times produced a kind of a dogs breakfast of all sorts of "let's try this- now, let's try that" tactics & effects. The mistake you make is trying to sort through this film, vainly trying to find a rational time line & plot, fueled by artistic integrity. The tenor of the times favored pop art, "if it feels good do it " experimentation, spoof, cartoonish characters, silliness & psychedelic shenanigans. The cameos fit the bill perfectly, as do the lavish sets & costumes, in a time when $ flowed, people lived for the moment, and the future seemed like a fountain of unstoppable fun & frolic, peppered by serious moments prompted by bad "trips" and the devastation fostered by the military/industrial complex.My advice is, don't over think this film, take it with a joint & another tab of your hallucinagen of choice, and enjoy. I'm rather fond of Casiono Royale in a nostalgic way, and just take it for whatever hedonistic pleasures are served up, in a POP ART, tuned-in, turned on, and trippy take of the multiple middle-aged directors trying to dive into the swing of the '60's before the bubble bursts and old age fizzles all the fun.p.s. do try, if you will accept a bit of constructive criticism, to omit the "you know"s from your sentences. Repetion of those words, you know, gets very annoying, you know, as you know, i guess you know.
+Calvin Dyson | James Bond Reviewer did you replace this cause I can remember!her you wearing a hat and a bowtie downing a bottle of alcohol or is that a false memory?
As underrated as Casino Royale '67 is, Casino Royale '06 is overrated. The two dudes of overrated comedy in recent years would be "Napoleon Dynamite" and "The Big Lebowski".
I'm a 60's baby. As disjointed and confusing as this was, I remember loving this film whenever it was shown on Television and the whole family watching it, and also remember my father laughing out loud. It was a crazy, frantic fun mess and definitely a product of its time.
I Love this mess of a movie probably for all music and its trippy, and the incredible cast. Its had car cases, and gorgeous women, an evil lair, cowboys and indians everything a young boy can be drawn into. As a youngster I couldn't wait to own this film, but as the years have gone by I really do see what a mess it truly is. Nevertheless its near and dear to my heart.
It’s certainly very much of its time and maybe it’s an absolute mess that hasn’t aged well but I can’t help but really enjoy it, I just think it’s great fun, it’s not supposed to be taken seriously at all and it’s just a laugh so I really like it. Also, I love the soundtrack!
You're right. I was thinking of showing it to my teenage son, but definitely won't now. If you didn't watch it while living through that time, this guy's right - it's make no sense. But I loved it too.
This has been a guilty pleasure action comedy since I was a kid...even when I wasn't sure what the heck it was about. I still like colorful 60s feel. Some people said it made a lot of money, some say otherwise. And some of the prettiest Bond women ever! Especially the exotic Daliah Lavi. Love! 🔥❤️
I'll be honest, I've always really liked this movie - it does help, though, if you edit it into the right order, and put the Sellers stuff together as it should be.
About its budget, this film had an astronomical budget for its time. Originally approved at $6 million, they somehow managed to double its costs during production for $12 million, which, in 2022 money, is over $100 million. The contemporary Bond films ran up to about $9 million
I saw this movie when I was 17 and absolutely loved it! At the time, just after “What’s New Pussycat” referenced in the film in a drain hole - that says a lot about what the producers thought about their previous picture with a lot of the same stars - I was then and still am a great James Bond fan having read most of the books before the age of 16! On seeing Casino Royale I wasn’t high well not quite until the end! (Only joking) Still, most of the spoofs are really good and it’s interesting to note that Angela Scoular who plays Buttercup, reappears in a James Bond two years later in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in the role of Ruby! I also love Bert Bacharach’s music especially played by Herb Alpert! All in all, for me anyway, it was a very enjoyable movie!
Wow another 'Casino Royale' '67 fan and also a Herb Alpert fan! I think that I'd read all of the novels by sixteen too. :-) Nice catch on Buttercup being Ruby.
It was the 'swinging sixties' and camp was in. You just had to be there and experience it to get it. Regardless, it was a mess and a s#!tshow; Austin Powers precursor.
The set design for the scene in the spy school is actually pretty clever, using German expressionism for a spy school set in East Berlin. Also there’s a certain amount of irony in the joke about Woody Allen going to hell given the controversies surrounding him later on. But, there was a joke early on about Sean Connery giving up the role in the EON film series (this came out the same year the film that was supposed to be Connery’s last film was released)
I was a bond nut in early 2000s but my interest waned with GoldenEye and Goldfinger as my favorites. Then in 2009 I discovered the 67 Casino Royale on THIS TV and was hooked. I have probably watched this more than any other Bond film in the last ten years. Even through the review I was laughing my ass off at various scenes being showcased.
It made no sense back in 1967 either. After I saw this film, whenever someone would ask me about a recent film I'd say ''They all got killed in the end!". In the 70s this film would turn up regularly on local TV on Saturday/Sunday afternoons. Replacing world leaders with duplicates was also the plot of FUTURE WORLD as well.
So what was this movie about?.........................................(the world tries to think of an answer)................................................... ...............................................SEALIONS!!!!
A few months ago I sat through every Bond movie because I got requests to review them on my channel. This was one of the hardest ones to sit through. Better than Quantum of Solace though. Great review!
haha, good review, thanks for making the film bareable with your video - we will be doing a woody allen retrospective next year and we needed some bullet points - we got em now :)
I always liked this movie, mostly because I get the 60's, but I just always thought it was a bit too long. However, I have always loved the theme song. Catchiest thing ever.
This film did not win an Academy Award for Best Song . That award was won by " Doctor Dolittle " Talk to the Animals “. Also this film came out in 67 not 66 as is stated . Otherwise a fun review, thanks Calvin .
I'm afraid you're a few decades too young to appreciate this film. It has a delightful period charm - and one of the greatest title tunes in cinema history.
It's a beautiful mess and the Mata Bond scene is pitch perfect -- it's complete expressionism with hilarious parody. And should have been the whole film.
This is one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for and just “go with it” as a product of its time. Funny thing is one joke from it was used in the official movies. In the Q scene there a joke about a poison- containing pen being perfect for poison pen letters. In Octopussy, Bond makes the same joke about an acid-containing pen.
I would say that Petter Sellers would play perfectly as James Bond in the beginning in 1953 when the book was published and I wished Ian Fleming’s novels into an officials films series in the 1950s to 1960s
As I've said on at least 1 other comment elsewhere, I just recently discovered your videos. I am not going into answering a lot of your questions. I hope by now you have come across some of those answers by now. That having been said, I love this movie & take it for what it is, a bunch of semi unconnected parodies that have their good points & weaknesses. Maybe part of it is because I lived through the 60s & get things that you being only 25 at the time wouldn't.
This parody/spoof is so far out there and over the top, but I adore it despite the mishmash of styles. And then they bring in Little Jimmy, and... ...it's hysterical! Some of the movie's aspects hold up marvelously, mostly because the franchise would later use other actors for 007 seriously. The sight gags and surreal Addams family-esque sets later on are nothing less than brilliant. I've seen the opening joke half a dozen times and never saw some details until your video showed them. Late 60s British ribald double entendre is a little out there, but how would a parody outdo Goldfinger's associate's name from three years earlier? Total agreement on excessive set pieces needing a cohesive piece... Mata and the spy school definitely had the best and worst of the film. Great direction and camera work, great pacemaker, great sets (wnd mention lol), but some jokes just don't land. ...Tibbet... 🤣 20:00 for the next 87 seconds 😍 I suspect that scene got lsd customers hooked and what led to 2001 being seen en masses by them the following year... 4th wall comedy can be hit or miss, but 21:28 always has me cracking up... 25:49 I love how Lavi's hair is the same shape as the lair, which is the same shape as the (ugh) UFO (a spoof on stupidly larger than life hideouts, but that gag doesn't really work as well as it could... not that I'd know how to make it work, only Bond fans might make the connection and this was long before the 90s when Bond truly camped it up.) 26:10 the shift to Broadway is out there. I chuckled, but - wow- it is so weird and I hope they reused the set's mechanics elsewhere! So many reasons that this movie isn't the worst, and why it should be canonical too. Yeah, the movie needed more cohesion... but it'd be far worse if none of it worked.
The movie was supposed to be a spoof comedy with Peter Sellers as someone who is hired to be "Bond", and would be less zany and more of a comedy. There was no David Niven. Then Peter Sellers, who wanted to play it straight and actually be a non-official Bond (like Never Say Never Again) kept pushing for it be closer to the original book. Well, he eventually was fed up and just never came back to the set. So, in a desperate move, the producers hired several directors and asked them to film things to salvage the picture.
The way to understand this film is to remember that the 1967 "Casino Royale" was created by hiring five directors to shoot films with lots of great actors and no script. Then, after realizing they had hours and hours of meaningless junk, one director shot more footage to get the story to make sense -- that included the early scenes in Scotland.
This film is a complete glorious wonderful garbage fantastic mess. I love it.
AMEN
Fun fact: Feldman originally wanted to hire Connery, who said that he'd do the job, but only for 1 million dollars. The former thought it was too much and this was the result. Years later, Feldman told Connery it would've been cheaper just to pay him the money.
Yeah, and he went on to pay Peter Sellers that much anyway!
If this were today, he wouldn't be able to do it because of contracts, union laws, copyright, etc.
Feldman died 13 months after the premiere.
Feldman would have been better off selling his rights to EON instead.
Yeah, it cost 3 million for the A-list, ensemble cast alone
As batshit as this entire mess is, the East Berlin spy school really is a masterclass in surreal expressionism; the nightmare behind every door scenario, enforced by in-camera tricks, jarring lighting, and theatrical set design feels like a David Lynch short film
Yeah its really an intresting scene
we're gonna destroy Bond's celibate reputation...
They modelled the whole sequence and design on Cabinet of Dr Caligari, actually.
It's easily the best part of the movie, as it is the most coherent and well-rounded : it works as a spy film parody, a German expressionnism parody and a typically British comedy. The trio of lead actors (Pettett, Quayle and Cobbett) could have carried an entire film on their shoulders.
>implying David lynch hasn't built his entire career off bullshit
I am now in my 70's and have seen all of the Bond films in the cinema as they were released. This one was the only one where l returned to the cinema for a second viewing . I also bought the sound track to it. In life we all need a good laugh and this provided one. PROFESSOR KEN.
The ending sequence is one of the most beautiful things I've ever witnessed
I'm truly amazed that anyone could take this film so seriously! It is quite enjoyable for what it is - a total mess of a time capsule of 60s pop psychedelic images, probably best enjoyed whilst chemically altered. The music by Burt Bacharach is delightful, you get to watch tons of famous actors being incredibly silly, and it's visually quite fun. Peter Sellers walked out part way through, so some of the most perplexing bits are just the producers trying to salvage something of the odd bits of film with him - possibly just him improvising out of character. There is really no point in trying to make sense of it, it's something to sit back and let wash over you if you are in the right mood and took the right substances beforehand.
Say hello to the film that started that completely bogus "James Bond is only a Codename" theory
I honestly feel it isn't all that bogus, then again I like the idea of Connery's Bond being Mason in The Rock, it would explain his escape abilities, the implication that the daughter he visits is not the only one he's had, the ability to quip and even WHY he wasn't bailed out by his Government (Denying all knowledge anyone?) With behaviours seen by Bernard's M in universe explaining such callow actions even to such a prodigal agent, further explaining the change between the 60s and 70s.
I's Not Bogus at All, though.
@Jack The Film Fanatic No way! Daniel Craig became 007 in 2006, after Brosnan had already played Bond to Dench's M.
@@TheAskTrixieChannel Judi Dench played two different Ms, though. The M from the Brosnan era was Barbara Mawdsley. The M from the Craig era (before Mallory took over) was Olivia Mansfield. And even before that, we see Roger Moore's Bond visit Tracy Bond's grave in For Your Eyes Only, and it's mentioned in the Moore and Dalton films that Bond was previously married. So I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's the same Bond through all those films.
@@Bauglir100 correct. its all the same Bond. They just rebooted the story with Craig but its suppose to be the same guy.
I do admit I actually quite like Herb Alpert's theme to this film. It's annoyingly catchy, but it's still a funky song
I have the entire album.. just loved the music. The movie??? not so much. LOL
I *love* the music. The whole track is outstanding
Calvin perfectly captures the bonkers experience of watching Casino Royale 1967. But I can never hate this 30-car-pile-up of a movie. I dunno, blame it on Burt Bacharach.
"Remember: forget everything that I've told you." This film's plot in one sentence.
It is kinda ridiculous to think that a mess like this one had the highest budget of a Bond film until Moonraker.
My mom and I watched this move so many times when I was a little girl! As soon as I hear the music I'm transported.
I, too, was more than a little in love with Joanna Pettet. I was heartbroken when she cut her hair.
If I wanted to have a trip without actually taking acid, I think this film should suffice.
The extended reviews of this film are among the most entertaining reviews of any films ever made. Partly, that's because in reviews, you only take out little chunks of the film being reviewed - and "Casino Royale" is made of absolutely stellar and iconic chunks. Of course, those chunks fit together in the actual film in a completely haphazard manner - but the chunks themselves are absolutely brilliant. I'll give an example: The "Look of Love" sequence in "Casino Royale" is absolutely astonishing. I might go so far as to say it is the first modern music video, and worlds better than the videos The Beatles were putting out at the same time. But in terms of fitting in with the rest of the film.... it didn't. "Casino Royale" is like walking through a mall, you go to a camera store, then a shoe store, then a jeans shop.... at the end, you've hit everything, but they were all completely different experiences that together created a nice afternoon.
This film is INSANE.
+Michelle Murcha Yes and a whole hell of a lot of fun, IMHO.
Yep. It is a time period tongue in cheek spoof of Bond films, NOT a real Bond Film. If people look at it that way, it is a great film with a terrific sound track. You want to be smoked up, eating donuts and drinking coffee when watching this.
That's why I liked it!
..LY fun! 😁
The power of Bond's Thunderballs is enormous!
It's like the often-understated inspiration for the Austin Powers franchise.
The movie's sort of like "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where the comedic narrative is free roaming.
Generation X likes Austin Powers more because Mike Myers tells fart jokes.
I would like to note that this travesty cost more to make than every 007 film up to Goldeneye, with the one exception of Moonraker. Truly inexplicable.
Actually "The Look of Love" was nominated for best original song at the Oscars, it did not however win the award, it lost it to "If I Could Talk to the Animals" from Doctor Dolittle. Sorry for nitpicking, but I couldn't let it go by.
+Jake Maringoni Glad you commented this first so I didn't have to.
Interesting that Roger Moore sang "if I could talk to the animals" in the Muppet Show. Hm. Perhaps he was flipping off Casino Royale 67?
Ah, "Doctor Dolittle"... the film that finally killed the Hollywood musical...
14:10 Not only did it have six directors, but Woody Allen and Orson Welles were Academy AWard winning directors in their own right!
The film makes no sense so you just have to go with the flow.....
It made sense to me.
Probably the best Calvin Dyson review ever.
I was old enough to remember enough of the 'vibe' of the 60s to grok this film. It's probably one of my favorite Bond films because Peter Sellers is so insane.
I am 1991 model. But it must have been amazing for people to experience those movies then ^^
French actor Jean-Paul Belmondo is in the opening credits, but has only a 20-second cameo!
Ooooch!
Holy shit, the editing in this review is absolutely fantastic!
Incredible cast, great music score, stunning design, I love this gigantic, bloated, tasteless, piece of s--- trainwreck of a movie. It's fascinating to sit through it and watch it unravel before your very eyes. So, yeah, I love every stupid minute of it.
Same here. I've seen it countless times and yes it's complete nonsense. I've always loved it since my childhood in the 70s. I guess folks from that era kinda get it I suppose. It's not hilarious or filled with belly laughs. It's ZANY. Big difference. It's not that funny but it's FUN. There's a difference. I guess only certain folks get it.
@@cashflowhustles It's utter nonsense but it's wonderful nonsense in the way that Hollywood just isn't capable of these days.
@@Shadowman4710 Exactly!
Me too. :-)
@@cashflowhustles It very well might be one of those things where you had to be there to "get it". :-)
The 60s was unique to say the least. A very strange but fun time.
You had me at "Woody Allen explodes" 🤣
Unironically the bits with Mata Bond infiltrating the Spy School in Berlin is the best part of this movie, just because of how absurd and surreal it is
I love this movie as a satire and mocking of Bond, it’s lighthearted fun
I love this movie so much ) The cast is full of big stars and amazing , one of my fave parts is the George Raft scene at the end of the flick. ( Raft plays himself ) This movie was a huge financial success at the box office and won an Oscar for the music.
What blew me away was reading that Smersh actually did exist. It was a Russian counter espionage unit which made sure soldiers didn’t retreat during WWII and disbanded around 1945. It is a contraction of Smyert spyonam (spelling?) meaning “death to spies”
this film is like when you're a kid and you threw together all the weirdest combinations of all the food you can find in the house and dare your friends to eat it..
I like the credit sequence music...herb albert did a great track!
After school, I couldn’t decide on Vegemite, jam or honey in a sandwich so I applied all three, took one bite and vomited immediately. I never did it again.
All while playing Herb Alpert in the background as they eat.
Kind shame they turned the 1967 Casino Royale movie into spoof when the EON films became success. The film has few moments were you wonder where this film might have gone if they had decided to to make serious 1960's spy film.
Maybe that was the plan when they approached Sean Connery? I was 14 in 1967 when I saw it, and love it to this day. In fact, it is the only James Bond film that I own on DVD.
it's crazy to think that in 1966-1967 EON was all up in arms over Connery and their efforts were a bit stalled ... and to think.. a competent producer could have mounted the production of a Bond film with ANY of the actors who ultimately played Bond.. INCLUDING Connery!
Fun fact: When not adjusted for inflation, this is the lowest grossing film to feature the James Bond character. It even holds a Guinness World Record for it.
I’m really shocked to learn this!!
@@Geezer-yf8hv Are you?
Well, I'm kind of surprised it made less than Never Say Never Again.
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer No, just being sarcastic. I wouldn’t even waste a buzz to watch this again!
@@Geezer-yf8hv Sorry, I'm really bad at detecting sarcasm through text.
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer Yeah, the curse of texting! There should be a sarcasm emoji? 🤔🤔😉😉
I kind of wonder how this movie would have turned out if Blake Edwards was in charge. It could be me but I feel his movie "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" is a Bond parody of sorts. Just take away the fact that Peter Sellers is a Detective instead of a Spy and you have a bond parody.
Inspector clouseau would’ve been a hilarious bond
I just remembered a song that was playing at the end of this movie. It went, "7 James Bonds at Casino Royale..."
Sean Connery,
David Navin,
George Lazenby,
Roger Moore,
Timothy Dalton,
Peirce Brosnan,
Daniel Craig.
It's not inaccurate.
song by Peter Sellars.
ITV1 here in the UK just showed this film (05/06/2021at 10:20pm) and I have to say that although it's incredibly cheesy, it was a guilty pleasure to watch with a few drinks going and a nice distracter from Covid, plus it's kind of touching that a mainstream channel still shows the film in 2021; an age where most young people have to stay at home, can't be out clubbing and you'd think that the channel wouldn't dream of putting it on for them. Total Respect for them appreciating classic films!
I love the hell out of this movie.
The kicker is...it's implied in this movie that the Connery Bond is Sir James' "replacement". Sir James expresses contempt for his replacement's womanizing ways.
Which means...oh, dear Lord, this is where that whole stupid "codename theory" got started!
Oh, well, at least this movie gave us "The Look Of Love."
by the standards of most 1960s comedies, this movie was a work of genius
It will forever remain brilliant in the eyes of those who get it.
I remember watching this on TV once - the only thing I remember are the bagpipes, the wtf ending and the confusion I felt. I'm happy I'm not the only one who felt completely lost while watching it, you got a new subscriber!
It took me at least 8 watches before I could follow it.
@@hdofu There are some films you just know the old casting couch got a helluva workout!
I didn’t get the stone balls and wondered if it is a Scottish thing like caber tossing. I never saw any other reference to it elsewhere. Probably one of many things which didn’t make sense.
Having grown up during the 60's and seen this movie at the theater I can tell you that it was not the script but the names of all the famous actors that made people want to see it. And of course the LSD. LOL
LSD kinda explains that no disrespect to your decade though i love the 60s especially the music
This movie is like the fanfiction I used to plan with my friends in high school. Less a coherent story, more a framing device for gags and jokes, except at some point there are so many bits and unconnected absurd bits that the framing device collapses, and the gags are there in a bid to distract you from that fact.
I still can not fathom why anyone ever tries to do a meaningful 'serious' critique of this brilliant mess of a movie. It is every bit the mess you say it is, and it is widely loved for it. Anyone who hasn't seen it yet, just watch it and decide. But drop any plans to try to compare it to anything else that's ever been made. It's a totally trippy mess that had 5 directors and tons of awesome stars.
The actor who played Bond here has a striking resemblance to Ian Fleming himself.
Derek Witt Peter Sellers?
@@TheRealBGregz Woody Allen
David Niven?
Terrence Cooper?
Ursula Andress?
18:07 One of the few moments when I genuinely laughed out loud when watching this movie was the little celebration after Orson Welles' magic act in which the different-colored gels appear, because it feels as if the director is openly mocking Orson Welles and his damn magic demands.
It's a fun slapstick film that's the first to take shots at James Bond and spy genre, which is ripe for parody. It's a Monty Python style comedy which is why you may not find it funny. Absurdism is more important the story. It's a place for characters to run wild and they do. Spies, gadgets, hot babes, and villains. What more could you want?
I generally like your reviews, Calvin, and here you start off on the right foot, mentioning your age. It's pertinent. The '60's was rife with inanity, movies & television shows that were filled with a series of running sight gags, non-sequitors & sketches epitomized by the wildly popular tv show Laugh In, which was also created in 1967.Granted, the changing line up of directors, the obvious emnity between Sellers & Welles, the LSD, mescaline, dope-soaked atmosphere of the times produced a kind of a dogs breakfast of all sorts of "let's try this- now, let's try that" tactics & effects. The mistake you make is trying to sort through this film, vainly trying to find a rational time line & plot, fueled by artistic integrity. The tenor of the times favored pop art, "if it feels good do it " experimentation, spoof, cartoonish characters, silliness & psychedelic shenanigans. The cameos fit the bill perfectly, as do the lavish sets & costumes, in a time when $ flowed, people lived for the moment, and the future seemed like a fountain of unstoppable fun & frolic, peppered by serious moments prompted by bad "trips" and the devastation fostered by the military/industrial complex.My advice is, don't over think this film, take it with a joint & another tab of your hallucinagen of choice, and enjoy. I'm rather fond of Casiono Royale in a nostalgic way, and just take it for whatever hedonistic pleasures are served up, in a POP ART, tuned-in, turned on, and trippy take of the multiple middle-aged directors trying to dive into the swing of the '60's before the bubble bursts and old age fizzles all the fun.p.s. do try, if you will accept a bit of constructive criticism, to omit the "you know"s from your sentences. Repetion of those words, you know, gets very annoying, you know, as you know, i guess you know.
You know, you're right, you know. They really make things repetitive; you know?
Let's get Calvin to 10k subs!
+superguy X I would support this!!!
+Calvin Dyson | James Bond Reviewer did you replace this cause I can remember!her you wearing a hat and a bowtie downing a bottle of alcohol or is that a false memory?
+Calvin Dyson | James Bond Reviewer you should have 50,000
the behind the scenes drama is more interesting then the movie
I reckon it would make a great bio movie!
As underrated as Casino Royale '67 is, Casino Royale '06 is overrated.
The two dudes of overrated comedy in recent years would be "Napoleon Dynamite" and "The Big Lebowski".
@@quincycampbell9828 big lebowski overrated?! This aggression will not stand man
I'm a 60's baby. As disjointed and confusing as this was, I remember loving this film whenever it was shown on Television and the whole family watching it, and also remember my father laughing out loud. It was a crazy, frantic fun mess and definitely a product of its time.
I Love this mess of a movie probably for all music and its trippy, and the incredible cast. Its had car cases, and gorgeous women, an evil lair, cowboys and indians everything a young boy can be drawn into. As a youngster I couldn't wait to own this film, but as the years have gone by I really do see what a mess it truly is. Nevertheless its near and dear to my heart.
Wait. Woody Allen as the nephew? That means he was the original James Bond, Jr.! (see cartoon)
It’s certainly very much of its time and maybe it’s an absolute mess that hasn’t aged well but I can’t help but really enjoy it, I just think it’s great fun, it’s not supposed to be taken seriously at all and it’s just a laugh so I really like it. Also, I love the soundtrack!
You're right. I was thinking of showing it to my teenage son, but definitely won't now. If you didn't watch it while living through that time, this guy's right - it's make no sense. But I loved it too.
This has been a guilty pleasure action comedy since I was a kid...even when I wasn't sure what the heck it was about. I still like colorful 60s feel. Some people said it made a lot of money, some say otherwise. And some of the prettiest Bond women ever! Especially the exotic Daliah Lavi. Love! 🔥❤️
I'll be honest, I've always really liked this movie - it does help, though, if you edit it into the right order, and put the Sellers stuff together as it should be.
"are you sure I'm not crowding you...?" hahaha
I love your reviews Calvin. This updated version is far superior than your previous one. great job. keep on keeping on....
About its budget, this film had an astronomical budget for its time. Originally approved at $6 million, they somehow managed to double its costs during production for $12 million, which, in 2022 money, is over $100 million. The contemporary Bond films ran up to about $9 million
Orson Welles was so grossly overweight at this point, he had no capacity to manoeuvre 😂😂
This idea that is an Oscar winning film is even more bizarre than Suicide Squad (2016) winning an Oscar
I saw this movie when I was 17 and absolutely loved it! At the time, just after “What’s New Pussycat” referenced in the film in a drain hole - that says a lot about what the producers thought about their previous picture with a lot of the same stars - I was then and still am a great James Bond fan having read most of the books before the age of 16! On seeing Casino Royale I wasn’t high well not quite until the end! (Only joking) Still, most of the spoofs are really good and it’s interesting to note that Angela Scoular who plays Buttercup, reappears in a James Bond two years later in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in the role of Ruby! I also love Bert Bacharach’s music especially played by Herb Alpert! All in all, for me anyway, it was a very enjoyable movie!
Wow another 'Casino Royale' '67 fan and also a Herb Alpert fan! I think that I'd read all of the novels by sixteen too. :-) Nice catch on Buttercup being Ruby.
Now we know where „Cubby“ Broccoli got the set from Scaramangas shooting range. It was a leftover set desing from Casino Royale. 😂
It was the 'swinging sixties' and camp was in. You just had to be there and experience it to get it. Regardless, it was a mess and a s#!tshow; Austin Powers precursor.
The Look of Love. How did one of the most beautiful songs ever made come from such an inspid movie such as this?
Insipid for you perhaps; a fantastic cult film to others.
The set design for the scene in the spy school is actually pretty clever, using German expressionism for a spy school set in East Berlin. Also there’s a certain amount of irony in the joke about Woody Allen going to hell given the controversies surrounding him later on. But, there was a joke early on about Sean Connery giving up the role in the EON film series (this came out the same year the film that was supposed to be Connery’s last film was released)
One of your best videos by far. Keep it up, my friend
"shockingly, i was not around in the 1960s" ... I dont think a single person on the planet is shocked about that lol
I was a bond nut in early 2000s but my interest waned with GoldenEye and Goldfinger as my favorites. Then in 2009 I discovered the 67 Casino Royale on THIS TV and was hooked. I have probably watched this more than any other Bond film in the last ten years. Even through the review I was laughing my ass off at various scenes being showcased.
You may have been laughing at the scenes being shown, but did you laugh at the review itself?
Jacqueline Bisset as Miss Goodthighs was a nice moment. Plus the Look of Love.
It made no sense back in 1967 either. After I saw this film, whenever someone would ask me about a recent film I'd say ''They all got killed in the end!". In the 70s this film would turn up regularly on local TV on Saturday/Sunday afternoons. Replacing world leaders with duplicates was also the plot of FUTURE WORLD as well.
It’s like if a pale Monty Python imitation decided to do a Spy film.
So what was this movie about?.........................................(the world tries to think of an answer)...................................................
...............................................SEALIONS!!!!
An epic farce masterpiece.
In all the viewings I have had over the years, this is the first time that I have noticed _"THE JAMES BOND TOADSTOOL PAT. PENDING"_
A few months ago I sat through every Bond movie because I got requests to review them on my channel. This was one of the hardest ones to sit through. Better than Quantum of Solace though. Great review!
Parts of this film especially when it's at its most insane. Feels like a Monty Python sketch gone wrong.
haha, good review, thanks for making the film bareable with your video - we will be doing a woody allen retrospective next year and we needed some bullet points - we got em now :)
Always remember, there would of not been an Austin Powers series without this movie. I think Mike Myers would admit this.
The lion on the car, and the music playing during it, was a reference to the movie and song 'Born Free' which were very well known at the time.
I always liked this movie, mostly because I get the 60's, but I just always thought it was a bit too long. However, I have always loved the theme song. Catchiest thing ever.
This film did not win an Academy Award for Best Song . That award was won by " Doctor Dolittle " Talk to the Animals “.
Also this film came out in 67 not 66 as is stated .
Otherwise a fun review, thanks Calvin .
This is so insane it is actually scary.
It's the 1960s in a Nutshell
It's a series of sketches basically abit like The Seven Deadly Sins film which came a few years later
Cool - looking forward to You Only Live Twice
I'm afraid you're a few decades too young to appreciate this film. It has a delightful period charm - and one of the greatest title tunes in cinema history.
It's a beautiful mess and the Mata Bond scene is pitch perfect -- it's complete expressionism with hilarious parody. And should have been the whole film.
Bravo, he is a great reviewer given his youth. Excellent
This movie is so 60's that i'm surprised that Austin Powers didn't time travelled his way into Casino Royale.
I always thought I was just not smart enough to get this sophisticated movie, but now after this review I feel better about myself.
This is one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for and just “go with it” as a product of its time. Funny thing is one joke from it was used in the official movies. In the Q scene there a joke about a poison- containing pen being perfect for poison pen letters. In Octopussy, Bond makes the same joke about an acid-containing pen.
Fantastic review Mr Dyson! I watched the movie years ago and I couldn't even follow the story as well as you could! hahaha
I would say that Petter Sellers would play perfectly as James Bond in the beginning in 1953 when the book was published and I wished Ian Fleming’s novels into an officials films series in the 1950s to 1960s
As I've said on at least 1 other comment elsewhere, I just recently discovered your videos. I am not going into answering a lot of your questions. I hope by now you have come across some of those answers by now. That having been said, I love this movie & take it for what it is, a bunch of semi unconnected parodies that have their good points & weaknesses. Maybe part of it is because I lived through the 60s & get things that you being only 25 at the time wouldn't.
My favourite bond film. Of course it's absolutely bats over bollocks, that's why it's my favourite!
This parody/spoof is so far out there and over the top, but I adore it despite the mishmash of styles.
And then they bring in Little Jimmy, and...
...it's hysterical!
Some of the movie's aspects hold up marvelously, mostly because the franchise would later use other actors for 007 seriously.
The sight gags and surreal Addams family-esque sets later on are nothing less than brilliant.
I've seen the opening joke half a dozen times and never saw some details until your video showed them. Late 60s British ribald double entendre is a little out there, but how would a parody outdo Goldfinger's associate's name from three years earlier?
Total agreement on excessive set pieces needing a cohesive piece...
Mata and the spy school definitely had the best and worst of the film. Great direction and camera work, great pacemaker, great sets (wnd mention lol), but some jokes just don't land.
...Tibbet... 🤣
20:00 for the next 87 seconds 😍 I suspect that scene got lsd customers hooked and what led to 2001 being seen en masses by them the following year...
4th wall comedy can be hit or miss, but 21:28 always has me cracking up...
25:49 I love how Lavi's hair is the same shape as the lair, which is the same shape as the (ugh) UFO (a spoof on stupidly larger than life hideouts, but that gag doesn't really work as well as it could... not that I'd know how to make it work, only Bond fans might make the connection and this was long before the 90s when Bond truly camped it up.)
26:10 the shift to Broadway is out there. I chuckled, but - wow- it is so weird and I hope they reused the set's mechanics elsewhere!
So many reasons that this movie isn't the worst, and why it should be canonical too.
Yeah, the movie needed more cohesion... but it'd be far worse if none of it worked.
The movie was supposed to be a spoof comedy with Peter Sellers as someone who is hired to be "Bond", and would be less zany and more of a comedy. There was no David Niven. Then Peter Sellers, who wanted to play it straight and actually be a non-official Bond (like Never Say Never Again) kept pushing for it be closer to the original book. Well, he eventually was fed up and just never came back to the set. So, in a desperate move, the producers hired several directors and asked them to film things to salvage the picture.
Strange that several elements in this movie and in "You Only Live Tvice" are common!