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+

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.

Casino Royale 1967 starting David Niven & peter sellers is a spoof done on original James Bond films its got a cheesy bad story with hilarious dialogs & slap stick comedy moments plus all the characters are called James Bond here only to confuse villains like Le Chiffre & Smersh.now i wont spoil much here you will have to see the film yourself trust me guys this maybe not the the most funniest comedy ever done but extremely enjoyable.this film does not insult or mock the James Bond 007 character in anyway whatsoever the makers of this film just did some harmless fun with it that's all as a bond fan i am not offended & no one else should also.the cast is impressive here its got loads of hot women in here including the original bond girl Ursula Andress as vesper & Jacqueline Bisset who plays sexy Giovanna Goodthighs.the climax is laugh out loud riot with the whole casino gets ripped apart in a massive brawl no one gets spared the kill count is very high here.all of the bond films official or unofficial or spoofs like this film are way better then the rebooted Casino Royale 2006 version of Daniel Craig.the James Bond original film series used to be fantastic running for more then 40 years using the fun formula James Bond 007 is dead now it lasted from 1962 to 2002 then came the rebooted Casino Royale in 2006 the original Ian Flemming title adaptation but it was not a bond film it copied Jason Bourne flicks of Matt Damon & removing all the cool stuff & essence of a true bond fictional feel.i am not comparing this to Sean Connery till Pierce Brosnan era ones those are classics this film is not even in the same league i love them its just the Daniel Craig films that killed the 007 series & made it too realistic none of the recent films have any entertaining stuff left.surprisingly this being a spoof does a great job in holding viewers attention keeping the fun factor alive the action was good too so why the hate.Overall Casino Royale 1967 is a fun filled film nothing more it should not be taken seriously so ill take this any day over the soulless dull rebooted 2006 version my rating is 5/10.Recommended One Time Must Watch

There was little that was duller than a Sunday in late 80s rural southwest England. And being at a boarding school from Monday to Saturday meant Sunday was my only free day - bookended by church in the morning, the Top 40 on the radio in the evening, and not much to do in-between. The video shop was far away, and the Arnie and Sly films that my schoolmates raved about were most definitely banned by my mother. Bond films were permitted though, and until the next film would get an airing on TV, I took to the films and TV shows from the 1960s that trailed on 007's success. The mapcap psychedelia displayed in the Flint and Matt Helm films was a colourful zany antidote to the greyness of the current era, and to the perplexed reaction of my 80s fixated classmates, I developed a real hunger for that specific genre. As it turned out, these films tended to be a Sunday afternoon TV staple, and became the colourful highlight to my weekend.Casino Royale has been viewed negatively by critics - incoherent, chaotic, indulgent, and worst of all, an unfunny comedy. It was certainly more enjoyable as a 12 year old than it is now. Much of the humour seems to stem from the older generation trying to lampoon Bond and the swinging mid-60s counterculture, whilst not really understanding their targets and subsequently coming out somewhat fusty and out of touch. As for the plot, there really doesn't appear to be one - with 6 directors working on the film, the story has no flow or point, and the film is best considered instead as a series of sketches.So why my 6 out of 10? The film still looks as great as is did when I first watched it, and is a real monument to the bigger-is-better creativity of mid-60s. My personal favourites are the darkly psychedelic scenes in East Berlin, the hugely stylish villain's lair at the end of the film, and especially the seductive meeting of Peter Sellers and Ursula Andress, soundtracked by Dusty Springfield's 'The Look Of Love', which stands out simply as a piece of 60s cinematic genius. It is a scene that certainly left 12 year old me frustrated that I had not been born a few decades earlier; I'd have the chance to be a dapper playboy when I'd be older, but not in such fine style. As I grew older I moved on from worshipping the 1960s, and it became clear to me that for 99% of the population, that decade was probably even more drab than the 1980s. But there is a 12 year old me still there that feels joy at catching zany old swinging films from the 60s, and whilst Casino Royale certainly did not represent the youthful, modish zeitgeist of the mid-1960s, it is a stunning display of that era's 'sky's the limit' visual flair and creativity, and for 60s aficionados, it's absolutely worth sitting through the poor jokes.