Casino Royale (1954)

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

You may know the man and you may know the story, but have you ever seen the first ever James Bond motion picture? Technically, this hour-long made-for-TV feature is the first time Bond was adapted for a medium outside of the original novels.Despite that notoriety, this really isn't much to scream about. Maybe it was exciting TV back in 1954, but after the onslaught of bigger and more prolific James Bond pictures, this little feature has not aged well at all. Even on its own merits, the film offers a small smattering of struggles and thrills, but it's all really small-scale, bland, and not that exciting.This is also a rather lame adaptation of Ian Flemming's book. At its core, the film uses a very simple structure: Bond enters casino, plays off against Le Chiffre, gets tortured, fights his way out, and that's it. In both the novel and 2006 film, there is a lot more to it; both represented a more pronounced introduction (or re-introduction for the '06 film) for the iconic character, it marked the first encounter between Bond and SMERSH, and he has a significant relationship that would give the story more weight and mold him for future stories. None of that carries through in this version. There are many small changes and a lot of huge cuts to the story, which trims this whole affair down to something barebones, shallow, and flimsy. Among the various changes, James Bond is made into an American dude named Jimmy, Felix is renamed to Clarence for some reason, Vesper Lynd is nowhere to be seen, and is replaced by a female Mathis. Worst of all, none of these people have any ounce of presence or charisma. Yeah, at its best is just simple-minded throwaway entertainment; at its worst, it's a mess.The film naturally doesn't have much of a style to it, given its limitations as a TV production. Filming and editing are straightforward, if not rather bland. Acting is a hit and a miss; Barry Nelson is easily the worst actor to play Bond in the history of Bond, but he does have a few unintentionally funny lines. Peter Lorre, on the other hand, is effective as Le Chiffre. Nobody else really stands out much. This production uses simple sets, props, and costumes. Music adds little to the experience.If you're a die-hard James Bond fan, this feature is worth a look just so you can say you've seen it. Other than that, you're better off sticking with the Eon productions.2/5 (Entertainment: Poor | Story: Poor | Film: Poor)

While 1962's "Dr. No" was the first time James Bond appeared on movie screens, it was actually this 1954 television adaptation that the character was first seen at all. Since this was on American television, though, Bond's nationality was changed so he became Jimmy Bond, a Yank. Besides this distracting update, the story is very close to Ian Fleming's novel and most of the scenes are lifted directly from their source.A banker for SMERSH, Le Chiffre (played by Peter Lorre) has lost precious funds and has turned to a game of Baccarat to win it back. Bond is ordered to beat Le Chiffre so that his bosses would eliminate their own agent, causing great embarrassment to the organization. Helping Bond is Brit Clarence Leiter (another change from the novel) and Valerie Mathis, a former lover.It's fairly obvious that this was a live made-for-TV movie, with some technical screw-ups showing up here and there and the lack of a lot of different sets. That being said, the hour long episode moves quickly, with Baccarat being explained for anyone who doesn't understand at the start. There are also some funny bits, such as when Leiter manages to keep money away from one of Le Chiffre's henchmen.The small cast works well together, even though the acting gets appropriately too theatrical at times for my taste. Lorre is chilling as Le Chiffre, and fits Fleming's description quite nicely. Michael Pate as Leiter is pretty solid and a believable ally, while Linda Christian is the only weak link in the chain. So what's the verdict on Barry Nelson, the first James Bond? He's definitely no Sean Connery, but handles himself well before the image of the secret agent was created in the film series. His relaxed attitude helps to distract from the fact that Bond isn't British here.So even though the ending is a bit too tame (Fleming's torture from the book would never have reached TV audiences from 1954), the mini-movie makes up for it with a tense battle at the card table, some good acting, and a great espionage feel throughout. Any Bond fan should at least try to find this and the average movie goer should do the same, just to see how James Bond's first mission played out. 7/10

This version makes me happy that a British company did the commercial films. Never have I seen a Bond I would more like to see strapped, naked, to a rattan chair with no seat with a large flyswatter strategically placed underneath. The 1967 version actually does a better job of following the book -- and the 1967 version is a satire of the commercial films.

Not only is this a fairly faithful adaption of Ian Fleming's original Bond story, but it's an excellent example of early, live television - dropped lines, missed cue's, miss-timed squibs and sound effects... the whole 9 yards.Peter Lorrie is amazing as LeChiffre.You can find this gem on the 2002 DVD release of "Casino Royale ('67)"