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). 






Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism