Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

mifanyuk So, the first film about the famous British spy James Bond was not the "Dr. No". The first actor who played the 007 was not Sean Connery. First studio picture starring pro elegant mi6 agent is not Eon Productions. In 1954, CBS director Gregory Ratoff Ian Fleming buys the film rights to the first novel of the famous series, in 1000 dollars, and the money at the time were not low. After watching this television plays, 50 minutes long, I still have mixed feelings. Watch the first movie about the 007 was my old dream, but I will not say that I am very pleased seen. After all the action games that show recently, hardly somebody to watch the drama began 50 years ago, even the most about James Bond, except that loyal fans Bond as I am. The role of the main character in this film takes Barry Nelson. On it remains ambiguous impression. Outwardly, he is not like any one of the actors performing the role of an agent later with two zeros in the official films. "His face was a rustic" said my friend, who like me is a fan of James Bond. Since it is hard to disagree - in appearance he is not like Bond, but as most of acting, then there is another matter. 007 appeared before us in such a way and it described Fleming - glamorous spy ironically cracking down with any task, always knows how to defuse his subtle humor, people coming out of the water dry in the most seemingly difficult situations. Watch or not watch your work. I would recommend this movie for those who enjoys watching a film about the legendary spy. And if you look James Bond films only when nothing else to watch on TV, then you should refrain from watching this movie, and then you just go bad impression about the 007!

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki Early TV movie adaptation of 'Casino Royale' has the low key feeling of the original novel. The low budget both helps the movie and hinders it: it gives it the grittier look that some of the Bond novels have, and also makes it look slightly like a film noir, but also limits it in term of sets and props and lighting (which is often times visible over the actors' heads.) The short run time is also a mixed bag: the film doesn't overstay its welcome, and follows the book fairly closely, (the original novel was so short that it seems almost like a pamphlet, rather than a full length novel) but it doesn't give much opportunity to flesh out the characters at all.Peter Lorre is good as LeChiffre, and Michael Pate as Leiter (or "Letter" as he's listed in the end credits) is very likable, and perhaps would have made a better choice to play Bond here, but Barry Nelson was mediocre. If he would have been more familiar with the character and not been doing a Humphrey Bogart impersonation, he might have been good. He does fairly well when he's intensely grilling Valerie Mathis about the microphone LeChiffre planted in Bond's room, and he's adequate in the casino sequences, but falls flat during the climactic scenes.This TV-movie is also marred by the fact that the love interest between Bond and the lead girl is almost completely overlooked here, as is Bond's contemplation of resignation and his subsequent double-cross by the girl; basically the entire fourth(!) act of the novel was omitted here. Maybe if it would have had a longer running time, and if the censors would have allowed it, they could have fleshed out some of these omitted story elements? One of the villain's henchmen has a cane which doubles as a gun, which is a good touch; this particular scene follows the book closely, and is one of the better scenes in this film.

Dustin Dye "The name's Bond. Jimmy Bond."Or so this American James Bond might as well say in 007's screen debut.Before Sean Connery played Bond in 1962's big-screen "Dr. No," Barry Nelson (Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining") played the secret agent in this 1954 CBS small-screen live adaptation of Ian Fleming's first Bond novel.Jimmy Bond is an American CIA (Combined Intelligence Agency) officer. He is tasked with cleaning out communist agent Le Chiffre (Peter Lorre, "Casablanca") in a game of baccarat. Le Chiffre has been living like a high-roller on party funds, and if he can't recover the funds quickly, he's likely to be executed by his own party. He plans to stake everything on one card game at Casino Royale in France. Bond's mission is to make sure Le Chiffre is ruined. Bond is helped by British secret agent Clarence Leiter (perhaps a cousin of Felix Leiter) and sexy French double agent Valerie Mathis (Vesper Lynd and René Mathis from Fleming's novel rolled into one character).This early Bond film is markedly different from the later MGM series, and criticisms of it arise mainly from comparisons with the wildly popular franchise. To many, Sean Connery was the only Bond, and later actors were only replacements. Nelson still doesn't benefit by coming before Connery. Since "Casino Royale" was made for American TV as a part of the CBS series Climax!, the producers seemed to think they needed to make the hero American. Nelson plays Bond like a hard-boiled private eye. He talks with a stiff upper lip and drinks water instead of vodka martinis shaken-not-stirred. Peter Lorre, however, is spot-on as the villain. Even though he is a small man, he radiates an erratic intensity that makes him menacing.Since this version of "Casino Royale" was made for live TV, there are also mistakes as a result of not having multiple takes to get it right. There are long pauses in telephone conversations, Lorre is inaudible at times, and in one shot, he clearly didn't know the camera was still on him.This film probably won't be interesting to a general audience today, but it is a must-see for Bond fanatics.

pperson 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.