This is a mindless movie spoof to the James Bond franchise, where a retired 007 is called back out to duty to stop SMERSH, an evil organization that is murdering the spy agents. The plan was to name all the agents as James Bond and trick SMERSH head Le Chiffre in a game of baccarat, but, what results are one bumbling chaotic turn of events after the other.The movie started slow with some unexciting attempt at humor (I guess you need to understand British comedy to appreciate this), but, the film gets a little more exciting once we get into the spy action. The movie then gets a little more entertaining with some constant slapstick comedy and laugh-out-loud moments.Plenty of obvious James Bond references and pretty Bond girls. Not funniest spoof I've seen, but it's mindless fun.Grade C+

I always liked the Bond franchise and the way it changed throughout history. There is a great bit of difference between Dr. No and Skyfall. To say the least. However I decided to watch this "not genuine" Bond film to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Now I wish I had given this a miss. This film is an absolute disaster of a Bond film. David Niven is a wonderful gentleman and actor, but here the manuscript makes him a downright clown. Bond is not cool in any way in this film. He is a modest and easily surprised farcical character. The lines may have worked in the 60s, but in 2016, they are downright ridiculous. The special effects and stunts are non- existent - that is to say that even though they were limited in the 60s, the other Bond films from that decade show us that it can be done SO much better. The plot is a joke - at no point during this turd of a film did I feel the least bit excited or interested in what was happening next. They even (almost) manage to make the absolutely brilliant Peter Sellers appear indifferent and sad. Almost! Every other character in the film are downright unconvincing, regardless of how good an actor/actress they chose for the part. Don't waste two hours of your life on this. It is dire!

Casino Royale made in 1967 was initially a vehicle to pry Connery away from Bond when he was disheartened when playing the character for 5 films and before he eventually went on to make you only live twice a year later the offer was made by Charles Feldman he offered him approximately 1 million dollars to appear in his adaptation of Casino Royale which he had acquired the rights to make intending to make it a thriller but when Connery rejected his offer he made it into a spy spoof starring Ian Fleming's first and only choice for the role of 007 David Niven playing an older 007 coming out of retirement to save the world from spectre . And a radical change occurs after M - John Huston is killed Niven takes over mi6 and recruits various trainees to enter a training programme before becoming fully fledged secret agents ( men/women ) then all be called 007 to confuse the enemy its such a preposterous unnecessary edition to the Bond cannon with to many situations characters and needless dialogue Niven gives the only credible performance in the entire film suave and graceful as usual but the rest of the cast and characters in this film apart from le Chiiffe and Spectre are totally unnecessary to the story and should have primarily focused on David Nivens bond in short avoid unless your a die hard Bond fan watch for David Niven exclude the rest of the cast from you memory as the reek of unoriginality and creditableness .

Though audiences today are likely to hear "Casino Royale' and think of Daniel Craig's 2006 debut in the role of James Bond, it had in fact been filmed twice before then. The first was a live television version aired on American TV network CBS in 1954. It followed more than a decade later by a feature film produced by Charles K. Feldman. After an attempt to produce a co-production with "official" Bond film production company Eon starring Sean Connery was rejected (likely due to a similar situation have arisen due to issues with the rights to Thunderball), Feldman eventually settled on a different approach to filming Fleming's novel. That approach was parody.The result was released in 1967 ahead of the release of EON's You Only Live Twice. It was a big budget film for its time, costing $12 million at a time and featuring an all-star cast including David Niven, John Huston, Woody Allen, Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, Bernard Cribbins, Barbara Bouchet, Jacqueline Bisset and Ursula Andress among others. It also featured the work of five directors (including Huston and the underrated Val Guest) and was beset by behind the scenes issues that included a budget that doubled over production and clashes between Sellers (who reportedly wanted to the film to be a straight adaptation) and Welles (who regarded Seller as an "amateur").Looking at the film, it isn't hard to understand all the issues. It begins with M (played by Huston) and the heads of several spy agencies approaching the original James Bond (played by Niven) who is living in retirement in the English countryside on a massive estate. SMERSH is ravaging the spy world by killing agents from all sides and they want Bond to do something about it. When he refuses, M gives orders for Bond's estate to be destroyed which eventually leads to M's death and Bond taking over MI6. Already entrenched in parody mode, the film becomes increasingly absurd as it goes along as Bond decides all MI6 agents will now be known as "James Bond" to confuse SMERSH and goes on a recruiting drive. The recruiting drive brings agents including Vesper Lynd (Andress), the oddly named baccarat master Evelyn Tremble (Sellers), Bond's daughter from Mata Hari who is also named Mata as well as Bond's nephew Jimmy (Allen) amongst others. As if that wasn't enough, it goes into an episodic mode that takes the viewer from M's estate in Scotland, the gaming clubs of London, an auction of erotic images in Berlin and the titular casino where not only do Temble and Le Chiffre (Welles) have their card game but which also where SMERSH has its base.As the description may suggest, the film is a hodgepodge and a messy one at that. Indeed, the film's description by the British Film Institute as "an incoherent all-star comedy" is an accurate one though to call it a comedy may be stretching the definition of the word. Many times the film, despite being a parody, isn't funny at all but rather is dull and tedious as it stumbles along from one episode to another. The five different directors and the variety of writers who wrote it mean that the film completely, totally and utterly lacks any kind of cohesion in terms of visual style or indeed tone. The film's last section, a free for all fight sequence set in the casino that ends in an explosion and the various James Bond's appearing in heaven playing harps, is a summation of not just the film but all that is wrong with it: it's a mess.Which isn't to write it off completely. Sections of the film are actually surprisingly faithful to the original novel despite the comic overtones such as the Niven Bond's choice of car (which matches that of Fleming's novels) and it's especially true of the section with Sellers, Andress and Welles set at the casino in the middle of the film The card game is largely played straight once Welles' Le Chiffre gets past doing some magic tricks and Sellers doing a comedy Indian accent. Even in the truly odd torture sequence, which becomes an assault on the mind of Tremble/Bond, there's echoes of Fleming's novel such as Bond finding himself sitting in a chair with the seat removed from it, thus making it even more uncomfortable for Bond. Of all the actors in the film, Sellers is probably the one who comes off the best though his appearances in the film see him dipping in and out before eventually just disappearing (a result apparently of behind the scenes issues) while many of the others are effectively wasted on frankly poor material.At the end of the day though, it's hard not to be utterly disappointed in the 1967 Casino Royale. It doesn't work at all either as a Bond film or as a parody of it. It's a hodgepodge of styles and tones that never works either in a way that's either episodic or as a whole. It's a rare waste of talent both in front of and behind the camera and, as a result, deserves the title of worst Bond film ever made.