If you thought that the first screen Bond outing was Dr. No and that Sean Conery was the first Bond, you'd be wrong. Coming the better part of a decade before Dr. No was made and Goldfinger firmly established the image of Bond in the public consciousness, Bond came first to American television screens. For one hour in October 1954, Ian Fleming's first Bond novel was broadcast live on CBS. Despite the films that followed, it remains interesting viewing.Despite being merely an hour in length, the script Anthony Ellis and Charles Bennett is a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the original novel. The central plot of the novel, of Bond going to a French casino to bankrupt Le Chiffre at the baccarat tables and thus ensure his death at the hands of his Soviet paymasters, is front and center here. Much of the incidental events from the novel are in this version as well including one of Le Chiffre's henchmen threatening Bond with a gun hidden in a cane during the game. Even when incidents from the novel are difficult to do on screen to network censors and the limitations of live television production, versions of them still appear. These include an attack on Bond while entering the casino and even a version of Bond being tortured after the game in present though both mean that it's less gruesome than what both the novel and the 2006 EON film presented us with though it certainly seems to be no less painful for Bond. In a way the adaptation here is more faithful to its source material than many of EON's subsequent adaptations of Fleming's novels.Where it is less faithful is in its casting. Perhaps the most notable change, and the one most likely to hanker fans of both the novels and the later films, was the decision to make Bond an American in a move that seems to have been made to pander to the American audience who would hopefully tune in. Actor Barry Nelson (who is perhaps better known for his role as the hotel manager who interviews Jack Nicholson's character in the opening of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining) was cast in the role of "Card Sense Jimmy" Bond who was an agent of a fictional spy agency called Combined Intelligence. Nelson's Bond reflects little of the character that Fleming wrote in the original novel with his squared jaw and lack of charm which at times seems more in the vain of the gumshoe characters out of countless film noir works from the period. Yet Nelson is also able at times to show a more vulnerable character, especially in the torture sequence, which the EON films wouldn't bring out until Dalton and Craig took on the role decades later. It's a credible attempt at bringing Bond to life but it's also one that shows just how crucial the casting of that lead role can be.Other members of the cast work better. The characters of Vesper Lynd and Bond's French ally Rene Mathis are combined into a single character named Valerie Mathis played by Linda Christian. Christian does an admirable job bringing the first Bond Girl to life as a character though the adaptation not only combines the characters together but also gives them a past relationship that echoes Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca made a dozen years before. Another departure from the novel, and an interesting reversal of what was done with the Bond character, is the casting of the Australian actor Michael Pate in the role of British agent Clarence Leiter who takes the place of CIA agent Felix Leiter. Pate does an admirable job though the friendship between this particular Leiter and Bond seems a bit forced, especially in the opening minutes of the production. Like Nelson's Bond, the performances are credible but they're also far more admirable attempts as well.The most notable member of the 1954 Casino Royale cast though would be its villain. Playing Le Chiffre is none other than Peter Lorre, an iconic character actor notable for films including 1931's M and 1941's The Maltese Falcon. Lorre was perfect casting for the role and he brings a wonderful sense of menace mixed with charm to the first Bond villain, something that's especially present during the interactions between Bond and Le Chiffre during the first part of the production. Where Lorre really shines is during the last act when he taunts Bond as he's being tortured, mixing the charm and menace together in equal measure. If anything from this 1954 production pre-echoes what EON would do later, it's Lorre's Le Chiffre and that isn't a bad thing at all.For Bond fans, the 1954 Casino Royale makes for interesting viewing. Coming nearly a decade before the Eon films that have now firmly rooted the character for most people, it is a fascinating look at bringing Bond to the screen. Even with its faults and limitations of the format in which it was made, it remains at least a curiosity and at best something that die-hard fans of Her Majesty's secret servant should view at least once.

Even allowing for the fact that this was a product if early live TV, this "adaptation" of the Fleming novel is quite dreadful. There were a lot of truly great, even legendary, productions for early live TV.The principal problem with this episode is the casting of Barry Nelson as Bond -- and changing Bond to an American. Nelson completely fails to bring Bond to life. He totally lacks the charisma and dangerousness of James Bond. There is also zero chemistry between Nelson and Linda Christian, the supposed "love interest." Even Peter Lorre seems to be sleepwalking through his performance as Le Chiffre.The second fatal flaw in this production is that it completely fails to develop any real believable tension or sense of something important being at risk. The pacing is pretty plodding throughout.Some of the weakness of this production is in being forced to condense the story into 50 minutes. There is zero room for character development. However, I don't believe Nelson would have given us a credible James Bond even with two hours to do it in.So, this production is of historical interest as the first filmed adaptation of a James Bond story, but not of much interest otherwise.

You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. Okay, okay, this is not really a James Bond movie, but it is part of the Bond legend, so what the heck: Here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film and how "Climax!": CASINO ROYALE rates on a scale of 1 to 10: Title: CASINO ROYALE: It must be a good title; they've used it three times. 7 points.Pre-credits teaser: In the thrilling, nail-biting intro, "Climax!" host William Lundigan explains a little bit about the card game baccarat -- and not too clearly either. So, no one jumps out of a plane or skydives off a cliff or even gets killed -- but, at least, Lundigan is, well, a nice looking man. But he's not much of a card player, as he deals the cards by tossing them on the floor. I don't think that is according to Hoyle. 2 points.Opening credits: We don't get the legendary "gun barrel" opening that would become a Bond trademark, but ironically the opening credits are shown over a zoom into a similarly round camera lens. And after being informed that Act I is about to begin, an unseen -- and obviously inept -- gunman either tries to shoot Bond or is just trying to assassinate a stone column in front of the Casino Royale. Either way, he misses Bond by a mile. This is the only thing in the entire film that comes close to an action-packed, special effects sequence. 2 points.Theme song: No real music, just some vamping with a canned intro tune and a tad of Chopin later in the background. There really isn't much music at all in the film, giving the show that hollow, empty sound that is typical of live TV drama. Apparently this casino can't even afford Muzak. 0 points."Bond, James Bond": Barry Nelson is a nice, likable actor and as the first James Bond -- that is, "Card Sense Jimmy Bond" -- he brings to the role the grim intensity of a CPA worrying about changes in the tax code. He dominates the baccarat table of Casino Royale with all the self-assurance of a man who is afraid his wife will find out that he is risking the rent money at "Casino Night" at the local Presbyterian Church fundraiser. Nelson isn't very suave and quite frankly could have introduced himself as "Bland, James Bland." Yes, he is even worse than Timothy Dalton. 3 points.Bond Babes: Dressed to the nines, like June Cleaver all gussied up for the Country Club dance, Linda Christian is quite the epitome of 1950's fashion -- furs and pearls and everything. She doesn't show much skin, just that little hint of cleavage, but as the world's first Bond Girl she is certainly ritzy eye candy. As an actress, she is far less interesting. 6 points.Bond Villain: Peter Lorre made a career of being creepy and even in his later years his infrequent bit roles in minor horror movies had a comically bittersweet quality. Here however, despite playing LeChiffre, allegedly one of the most dangerous men that the Soviets have, he just makes you a little bit sad. Looking tired and indifferent, you get the feeling that what he wants most is to sit down and catch his breath. 7 points, but only because I really like Peter Lorre.Bond Baddies: His trio of "bodyguards" look like refugees from a morticians convention. They don't look so much deadly, as just dead-like. One of them does have a cane that is really a gun, which is the nearest thing the show has to a neat gadget. 4 points.Sinister Plot: The plot is not all that different from the other versions: Bond must bankrupt the Soviet's treasury by beating LeChiffre in a high-stakes game of baccarat. The big twist is that Jimmy-boy now is American and works for the CIA, the Combined Intelligence Agency, and is helped out by British agent Clarence Leiter (no, not Felix), who, as played by Michael Pate, is far more Bond-like than Nelson. The card match itself is high stakes gambling, but penny-ante drama. 5 points.Production values: Actually, this might pass for a big-budget production by live-TV standards of the 1950's, but like the quality of the grainy, black-and-white kinescope it was preserved on, it hasn't aged well. The sets are cheaply decorated to look faux classy, but all the rooms seem to be remarkably tiny, allowing for little imagination as far as the camera work. To say it looks primitive is to be overtly kind. 4 points.Bonus Points: Let's toss in 5 extra points just for reminding us that the so-called "Golden Age of Television" wasn't always that golden. For every "Requiem for a Heavyweight" by Rod Serling or a "Marty" by Paddy Chayefsky, there were plenty of clunky time-fillers like this. And though screenwriters Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis do try to capture the wit and charm of Bond, they also give us lines like this: "Aren't you the fellow who was shot?" "No I was the fellow who was missed!" Groan. Even Austin Powers would avoid dialogue like that.Summary: Watching this humble production, it is unlikely anyone could have foretold the way the Bond legacy would have prospered into a multi-billion dollar entity. It is a must-see for Bond fanatics and pop culture historians, but only a odd curiosity piece for all others.Bond-o-meter Rating: 45 points out of 100.

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)"