Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Overrated and overhyped

Just perfect...

The acting in this movie is really good.

This very first Bond movie was made with no preconceptions about Bond and not much respect for Fleming's novels, which is why the story is in some ways badly butchered. The ending is dull and plain compared to the exciting double endings of the original story. Some scenes, like the opening assassination attempt, are clumsy, badly acted.Of course, making Bond American and Leiter English seems awfully stupid for us, but this was made for a pure American audience, so they just translated the story from a British spy story to an American one. Doing that in the 50's is more excusable than making Bond look like an eastern Europe gangster in the 2000's.A particularly interesting comparison between this and the 2006 movie is Le Chiffre. Is it possible that Mikkelsen was chosen simply because he looks very much like Peter Lorre? The similarity is striking. Mikkelsen is taller and slimmer, but put their portraits side by side and they almost look like the same person. And in both movies, they carry the best part. Both stand out as the character actor of the movie!All in all, I claim that a good Casino Royale movie is still to be made, one that takes the original story seriously and does it well. The 1967 version is by far worst, but all three are embarrassing. This one is just the least embarrassing of the three.

Let's enter a dim, bygone alternate universe where James Bond was an American agent, strolling through a low-budget TV production adaptation of the Ian Fleming novel. In footage nearly lost, reflected in the muddy black-and-white presentation, we witness an historic first - the first TV or film incarnation of James Bond. Completing the reversal on Fleming's original concept, Bond's buddy Leiter is a British agent (always an American CIA agent in the future films). Yep, we've definitely entered a Twilight Zone-type warped version of the Bond mythology. It's typical, however, of the limitations of the live television format from the fifties: two or three different small sets (rooms) are used for the entire show; the action is slow, driven mainly by dialog, and it has the feel of a stage play, in three acts. What brief fight scenes there are, towards the end, are somewhat crude and awkward, not surprising since it is a live broadcast. The script follows Fleming's premise: Bond's mission is basically to outplay the main villain at cards (baccarat, in this case) and take his money; this remained the major plot point of the new film version in 2006.Filmmakers always seem to despair when given the task of making a card game exciting on film, but the potential is there - "The Cincinnati Kid"(65) is a good example and the 2006 version of "Casino Royale" also did a good job. Here, though a static game of cards seemed suitable for a TV episode, the solution was to make the scenes as short as possible. Bond (Nelson) gains the upper hand over Le Chiffre (Lorre) after only a couple of hands in the 2nd act and it's all over. The more intense scenes, in this version's favor, come about in the 3rd and final act, when Le Chiffre employs a tool of torture (below the bottom of the picture, off-screen) on a couple of Bond's toes; I guess he breaks them - actor Nelson gasps in pain convincingly. This retained the essential streak of sadism in Fleming's Bond stories (and the subsequent films), a surprising inclusion considering the bland TV standards of the fifties. Nelson was bland, as well, but adequate. Lorre was Lorre, one of those character actors known for stealing scenes, with an unforgettable voice. He was well cast as the first Bond villain, albeit a TV show version. This was, to its credit, a serious, no-nonsense approach, if quite a bit on the stiff side.Bond:6 Villain:7 Femme Fatale:6 Henchmen:5 Leiter:6 Fights:4 Gadgets:n/a Pace:5 overall:6-. This was the Bond title that the producers of the regular series of Bond films begun in 1962 were unable to use until the end of the century. The next film version of "Casino Royale" was in 1967, a completely different approach as a satirical silly romp. But James Bond would return on the big screen in "Dr.No"(1962).

When Ian Fleming published the first 007 novel, "Casino Royale", in 1952, he envisioned it as being made as a movie, and began 'selling' it to anyone who might be interested. He quickly struck a deal, but soon discovered that he'd made a bad bargain; once he'd relinquished the rights, not only did he lose any control over how it would be used, or where, but on any potential revenue from it, as well. He'd be far more cautious in future, but "Casino Royale" became the one 'Bond' title that Eon Productions wouldn't own...giving it a convoluted history that is worth a book on it's own! American television, in the 1950s, was called the "Golden Age" of 'live' drama, in part because recording techniques were so primitive. Short of actually filming productions, which was costly and time-consuming, the only way of recording was on videotape's predecessor, which was grainy, dark, and really awful. As a result, much would be performed 'live', with the taping only made as a record of the airing.A lot of plays, stories, and novels were edited into half-hour and hour-long television programs, and "Casino Royale" was adapted, by Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis, for an episode of the "Climax!" TV series. Changing sophisticated British spy James Bond into American CIA operative "Card-Sense Jimmy Bond", the characters were toned (and in some cases DUMBED) down for American audiences (I think the writers thought the Yank idea of 'sophistication' was beer in a glass). Vesper Lynd became Valerie Mathis, CIA agent Felix Leiter became British agent Clarence(?) Leiter, etc. The villain's name remained 'Le Chiffre', although his method of torture (caning one's genitals in an open-seated rattan chair) was 'cleaned up'...As Bond, veteran American actor Barry Nelson was smug, confident, and independent, preferring a 'lone hand' to outside interference. I met Nelson in the early 1990s, and asked if he remembered the production. He said he recalled little of it (as the production was 'live' and he was very busy in a variety of projects), but that, he recalled, Peter Lorre, as Le Chiffre, had trouble remembering his lines, and ad-libbed a lot.Within television's limitations, the basic plot (of Bond beating an enemy agent at the gambling tables to prevent him from recouping 'lost' espionage funds) is pretty faithful to the novel (which was based on Fleming's own wartime experiences). Despite this, the production is stagy (with only two sets), rife with missed cues and flubs, and overripe performances. Lorre does make a good villain, however, certainly better than some of the later film ones! All in all, the production offers novelty value, and little else...

This was a surprisingly accurate adaptation of part of Fleming's novel and is the debut of Bond on film. There took a few minor *ahem* liberties with the nationality of our favorite superspy and this is a TV movie from the 1950's. If you're lucky enough to ever see this, you won't really be thinking about that. You'll be like wow, I can't believe I actually got to see this!