The new Bond is way better

[aadler]

 
For Christmas, my son gave me a DVD of the 1967 version of Casino Royale, the David Niven/Ursula Andress comic send-up. Last night I finally got around to watching.

Who do I sue to get back that two hours of my life?

Seriously, how did so many immensely talented people get together and turn out such a pile of steaming crap? Granted, it was at the peak of the Sixties, when ‘psychedelic’ was considered cool … but there was absolutely no part of this appalling production that wasn’t simply awful.

Even though parodies aren’t entirely my cup of tea (I’ve never been able to understand the appeal of Monty Python, for instance), I’ve watched and enjoyed several, and recognized the quality of others even when I didn’t particularly enjoy them. But this … forget the faux-acid-flashback sequences, you’d actually have to be doing acid — in massive quantities, by direct IV — to take any pleasure from this self-indulgent vomit-splatter of wasted talent.

I’ll wait a few days (or maybe a few weeks, just to be sure), then re-watch the newer Daniel Craig version, to flush the last faint traces of reeking memory out of my brain.

Comments

[ludditerobot.livejournal.com]

The thing about the Daniel Craig version is that it shares absolutely nothing with the earlier version except the name. There's a really obscure reason why the title wasn't available to Cubby at the time, and what I've read shows that David Niven was far closer to Ian Fleming's concept of Bond than Sean Connery, but that's neither here nor there.

Personally, I like the baccarat scene because, like jai alai, almost nobody truly understands the game and they're playing with the inscrutability of it, and I think I get what they were trying to do with the auction house with the Berlin Wall going through it. As a whole, it sucked. In parts, it sucked. Other videos in your collection will stick to that one from pure suction.

Given a chance, I would've warned you, dude.

[aadler]

I’m afraid the warning wouldn’t really have penetrated. I already knew the 1967 Casino Royale was a spoof, I knew it was Sixties camp, I knew it wasn’t supposed to be part of ‘canon’ Bond. I just didn’t know how God-awful BAD it was. Dumb movies can nonetheless be entertaining (Animal House comes to mind), but this came across as an attempt by the directors — and overall producer — to show off how smart they were by making something deliberately stupid and still it was supposed to be good … only it wasn’t, it was an insult and a waste.

[bktheirregular]

From what I understand, they used six different directors, they couldn't get Peter Sellers and Orson Welles onto the same sound stage at the same time, and Sellers apparently walked out halfway through filming.

There's more on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_%281967_film%29#Trivia

[aadler]

I checked the citation you provided. It filled in some blanks, but I still can’t help feeling that the problems could have been overcome if there had been any attempt at an overriding theme, or even — had that proven impossible — a graceful abandonment of the project.

On the other hand, the movie seems to have been a success of some sorts when it first came out. If so, my respect for the people of the Sixties has been even further diminished.

Once you get too impressed with yourself, that’s when you come across as really stupid.

[xxmagex.livejournal.com]

1967 Casino Royale fits my definition of a "Beer movie" A movie that is most entertaining after the viewer has a good buzz going and is in the mood for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 experience.

[aadler]

Better yet: massive quantities of beer, and skip the movie.

[xxmagex.livejournal.com]

Ahhhhh, drinking vast quantities and making fun of movies as I watch them, two things that I can no longer do since I got married.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_finn_/]

Is that the

"You are insane my child, qvite insane"

"I think she's right..."

one?

*goes wassailing*

[aadler]

I honestly don’t remember. That sounds sort of like a line to Joanna Pettet (and her reply), but I’m not about to squander any more of my lifespan by going back to check.