Skip to main content

He has enough trouble being a single agent.

Casino Royale 
(1967)

(SPOILERS) I had assumed, wrongly, that Casino Royale was a massive flop. It was massively expensive, but proved – surprisingly – a reasonably sized hit. Perhaps because this kind of unwieldy, overblown sprawl had become fairly familiar by this point in the 60s; the public knew, and presumably liked, a big mess when they saw one. It’s a movie I suspect few stick with for the duration when it’s on TV, and for good reason, as it entirely fails to grip and has no plot to speak of, by dint of production circumstance. But in its own way, this original movie version of Casino Royale is quite likeable. And one positive is unarguable: Burt Bacharach’s score is a triumph (and regarding Talk to the Animals beating The Look of Love to an Oscar; well, it tells you what you need to know about the authenticity of the Academy).

It’s also safe to say that Ian Fleming was right, and David Niven would have been a perfect James Bond. Niven was a hasty addition to the cast when Peter Sellers’ appalling behaviour saw him being let go; there was a scramble to make some vestige of sense from the footage shot. Thus, Val Guest put together linking material with Sir James Bond, and it works to the extent that this feels much more like Niven’s movie than Sellers’. Indeed, if there were more Niven and Woody Allen to fill the gaps, you could comfortably remove Sellers from the entire thing and not feel very hard done by at all.

Piper (Peter O’Toole): Excuse me, are you Richard Burton?
Evelyn Tremble: No, I’m Peter O’Toole.
Piper: Then you’re the finest man who ever breathed.

Producer Charles K Feldman opted to make a parody because he didn’t think it would be possible to compete with the official series (there were talks, it seems, of a collaboration with Eon, but this fell through). It’s said that Sellers, as deluded as ever, was keen to make a straight version, the evidence of this being that his Evelyn Tremble/Bond scenes and with Le Chiffre (Orson Welles) pretty much follow the novel. On the other hand, you’d expect that, loosely, in a parody.

Sellers’ performance is mostly a lot of nothing. Tremble, a gambler employed to play Le Chifffre, shows up properly after three quarters of an hour and shares scenes with a nondescript Vesper Lynd (Ursula Andress), during which he dresses as Hitler, Napoleon and Toulouse-Lautrec. He is then nearly seduced by a young Jaqueline Bisset (as Miss Goodthighs), refuses to share the screen with Welles (Sellers was intimidated and concerned about being upstaged, it seems) and experiences a psychedelic torture when finally captured. Oh, and star cameos. Before ending up in heaven. The best part of his scenes are Welles’ magic tricks. So yes, he was upstaged.

Doubtless, Sellers’ star appeal and the investment forked out meant Feldman had no intention of ditching the Tremble footage entirely, but the consequence is the entirely inept linking material; the remainder of the picture is supported by Sir James Bond, Mata Bond (a game Joanna Pettet) and, at the end, Jimmy Bond (Allen). All this with a stew of five credited directors – Ken Hughes, John Huston, Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish, Val Guest – and an uncredited Richard Talmadge.

Much of the Niven subplot – they’re all subplots – is pretty feeble in design, as his Bond is forced out of retirement and must return the remains of M (an inadvisably self-cast Huston, who had envisaged Robert Morley) to Scotland. But Niven being Niven, he keeps this celibate highly-capable “elder” Bond – well, Niven was only five years older than Daniel Craig is now – watchable, as Deborah Kerr’s Agent Mimi/ Lady Fiona McTarry and her harem attempt to “ruin” him. Sequences such as the challenge to wassail and the grouse shoot work reasonably well. Derek Nimmo cameos. Barbara Bouchet makes for easily the most delectable (daughter of) Moneypenny. Generally, Niven lends the picture a much-needed air of class.

It’s so long since I last saw Casino Royale, I’d pretty much forgotten Pettet’s role, and I’m not really familiar with her body of work (she reminds me a little of Blake Lively). She’s engaging throughout, though, and there’s some amusement to be had at the “art auction” of comprising photos of military leaders. After all, we see Richard Wattis being very English, and Burt Kwouk offering “Seventy million tonnes of rice!

Sir James Bond: I never should have let Nelly send him to progressive school.

There’s nothing really to “follow” in terms of story, as the progress from scene to scene is virtually random. So when Mata is kidnapped by SMERSH in a UFO and taken to Dr Noah’s lair, replete with all-seeing eye designs, it isn’t particularly phasing. Allen, at a point in his career when his purpose was strictly to entertain, is a breath of fresh air; the movie is comedically energised for the first time. There are actual laughs (earlier he got in a “Listen, you can’t shoot me. I have a very low threshold of death”). Jimmy’s plan is a hoot too: “The germ when distributed will make all women beautiful and destroy all men over four foot six”. It certainly makes more sense than the current one professed to be “on the loose”.

The Detainer: You’re crazy. You are absolutely crazy!
Jimmy Bond: People called Einstein crazy.
The Detainer: That’s not true. No one ever called Einstein crazy.
Jimmy Bond: Well, they would have if he ever carried on like this.

Of course, the picture then throws up its hands in favour of a “madcap” finale replete with explosions, Allen hiccupping atomic time pills, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Mel Brooks-esque cowboys and Indians (along with George Raft and William Holden). Nevertheless, I’d rather watch this Casino Royale than at least four or five entries in the canonical series. It’s random, sometimes dull, entirely lacking in spine, but it’s also more than willing to flaunt its era, it frequently looks as expensive as it was, and it features a string of memorable performances and cameos (others I haven’t mentioned: Bernard Cribbins, Ronnie Corbet as Dirk Bogarde, Geoffrey Bayldon and Anna Quayle). 






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.