Own the rights?
13 out of 15 people found the following review useful: WHERE IT ALL STARTED!, 3 June 2002 Author: fugu_286 from USA
This was a surprisingly accurate adaptation of part of Fleming's novel and is the debut of Bond on film. There took a few minor *ahem* liberties with the nationality of our favorite superspy and this is a TV movie from the 1950's. If you're lucky enough to ever see this, you won't really be thinking about that. You'll be like wow, I can't believe I actually got to see this!
12 out of 15 people found the following review useful: Golden Age Television, 18 October 2002 Author: The Doctor-3 from Kentwood, MI
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)"
11 out of 14 people found the following review useful: First Appearance of James Bond...on American TELEVISION!, 19 April 2006 Author: Ben Burgraff (cariart) from Las Vegas, Nevada
When Ian Fleming published the first 007 novel, "Casino Royale", in 1952, he envisioned it as being made as a movie, and began 'selling' it to anyone who might be interested. He quickly struck a deal, but soon discovered that he'd made a bad bargain; once he'd relinquished the rights, not only did he lose any control over how it would be used, or where, but on any potential revenue from it, as well. He'd be far more cautious in future, but "Casino Royale" became the one 'Bond' title that Eon Productions wouldn't own...giving it a convoluted history that is worth a book on it's own! American television, in the 1950s, was called the "Golden Age" of 'live' drama, in part because recording techniques were so primitive. Short of actually filming productions, which was costly and time-consuming, the only way of recording was on videotape's predecessor, which was grainy, dark, and really awful. As a result, much would be performed 'live', with the taping only made as a record of the airing.A lot of plays, stories, and novels were edited into half-hour and hour-long television programs, and "Casino Royale" was adapted, by Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis, for an episode of the "Climax!" TV series. Changing sophisticated British spy James Bond into American CIA operative "Card-Sense Jimmy Bond", the characters were toned (and in some cases DUMBED) down for American audiences (I think the writers thought the Yank idea of 'sophistication' was beer in a glass). Vesper Lynd became Valerie Mathis, CIA agent Felix Leiter became British agent Clarence(?) Leiter, etc. The villain's name remained 'Le Chiffre', although his method of torture (caning one's genitals in an open-seated rattan chair) was 'cleaned up'...As Bond, veteran American actor Barry Nelson was smug, confident, and independent, preferring a 'lone hand' to outside interference. I met Nelson in the early 1990s, and asked if he remembered the production. He said he recalled little of it (as the production was 'live' and he was very busy in a variety of projects), but that, he recalled, Peter Lorre, as Le Chiffre, had trouble remembering his lines, and ad-libbed a lot.Within television's limitations, the basic plot (of Bond beating an enemy agent at the gambling tables to prevent him from recouping 'lost' espionage funds) is pretty faithful to the novel (which was based on Fleming's own wartime experiences). Despite this, the production is stagy (with only two sets), rife with missed cues and flubs, and overripe performances. Lorre does make a good villain, however, certainly better than some of the later film ones! All in all, the production offers novelty value, and little else...
15 out of 22 people found the following review useful: "You're a legend, Old Boy. 'Card Sense Jimmy Bond!'", 20 November 2006 Author: Merwyn Grote (majikstl@aol.com) from St. Louis, Missouri
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.
6 out of 6 people found the following review useful: not typical Bond, 17 November 2006 Author: murphy13_78 from United States
This is not your typical James Bond movie as we know James Bond today. I purchased it on video cassette and started watching it and was surprised to find a black and white movie in which James Bond is a CIA Agent and his counter part Felix Leiter is a British Secret Service agent. As far as action goes in this movie, it is a 1950's style of fights and action, do not expect it to be what you are used to. For something filmed years ago and seen today it is not the best, but for something of its time period it is a good film. The casino sequences are the majority of the movie. There are very few scenes set or shot outside the casino in this film. The actors did a good job of portraying the characters and setting the tone for the action to come. If you are a true James Bond fan then this is a must see movie for you, if not then don't waste your time.
6 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Jim Bond, old-time American-style, 1 May 2007 Author: Bogmeister from United States
Let's enter a dim, bygone alternate universe where James Bond was an American agent, strolling through a low-budget TV production adaptation of the Ian Fleming novel. In footage nearly lost, reflected in the muddy black-and-white presentation, we witness an historic first - the first TV or film incarnation of James Bond. Completing the reversal on Fleming's original concept, Bond's buddy Leiter is a British agent (always an American CIA agent in the future films). Yep, we've definitely entered a Twilight Zone-type warped version of the Bond mythology. It's typical, however, of the limitations of the live television format from the fifties: two or three different small sets (rooms) are used for the entire show; the action is slow, driven mainly by dialog, and it has the feel of a stage play, in three acts. What brief fight scenes there are, towards the end, are somewhat crude and awkward, not surprising since it is a live broadcast. The script follows Fleming's premise: Bond's mission is basically to outplay the main villain at cards (baccarat, in this case) and take his money; this remained the major plot point of the new film version in 2006.Filmmakers always seem to despair when given the task of making a card game exciting on film, but the potential is there - "The Cincinnati Kid"(65) is a good example and the 2006 version of "Casino Royale" also did a good job. Here, though a static game of cards seemed suitable for a TV episode, the solution was to make the scenes as short as possible. Bond (Nelson) gains the upper hand over Le Chiffre (Lorre) after only a couple of hands in the 2nd act and it's all over. The more intense scenes, in this version's favor, come about in the 3rd and final act, when Le Chiffre employs a tool of torture (below the bottom of the picture, off-screen) on a couple of Bond's toes; I guess he breaks them - actor Nelson gasps in pain convincingly. This retained the essential streak of sadism in Fleming's Bond stories (and the subsequent films), a surprising inclusion considering the bland TV standards of the fifties. Nelson was bland, as well, but adequate. Lorre was Lorre, one of those character actors known for stealing scenes, with an unforgettable voice. He was well cast as the first Bond villain, albeit a TV show version. This was, to its credit, a serious, no-nonsense approach, if quite a bit on the stiff side.Bond:6 Villain:7 Femme Fatale:6 Henchmen:5 Leiter:6 Fights:4 Gadgets:n/a Pace:5 overall:6-. This was the Bond title that the producers of the regular series of Bond films begun in 1962 were unable to use until the end of the century. The next film version of "Casino Royale" was in 1967, a completely different approach as a satirical silly romp. But James Bond would return on the big screen in "Dr.No"(1962).
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: CLIMAX!: CASINO ROYALE (TV) (William H. Browm Jr., 1954) **1/2, 2 January 2007 Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta
The first ever screen representation of James Bond is, understandably, miles removed from the way we have come to know and love Britain's top secret agent; for starters, this 50-minute adaptation of Ian Fleming's first Bond novel is not only shot in black-and-white but was recorded live for an American TV program entitled "Climax!".In fact, even Bond himself - occasionally referred to as Jimmy! - is an American here (played by the rather uncharismatic Barry Nelson) and the wildly international cast also consists of Austrian Peter Lorre as the villain of the piece Le Chiffre, Mexican Linda Christian as the female interest, Australian Michael Pate as C.I.A. operative Clarence(!) Leiter and Polish Kurt Katch as one of Le Chiffre's henchmen. The program concerns itself only with the all-important game of baccarat taking place in the Casino of the title and as such is much less exciting than any subsequent Bond outing but, for all that, Lorre's professionalism and the sheer naivete and, indeed, rarity of the whole thing gives it a certain charm which keeps one watching.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: forgiveness and discovery, 13 December 2008 Author: (winner55) from United States
A lot has to be forgiven here. First, this is a recording of a live performance - when something went wrong, they were stuck with it; and since this is cheaply made, they had little rehearsal time, so a quite a number of things go wrong. Secondly, the surviving recording is incomplete and not very good. Third, the producers of the show were trying to make the British Ian Fleming's break-out novel accessible to American audiences only familiar with American espionage B-movies, a '50s genre that has not gotten preserved, so most people now will not be familiar with the drab back-alley feel of this show drawn from that genre. And that the producers felt the need to go this route shows that they themselves really had little understanding of where Fleming was coming from - which was really Somerset Maugham's "Ashenden, or the British Agent," filmed in the early '30s by Alfred Hitchcock. And really, prime Hitchcock is the director Fleming would have had in mind while writing this book. But despite his popularity, Hitchcock himself remained an anomaly in Hollywood throughout the '50s. His ability to shock audiences was well known, but his capacity for sophisticated wit and subtle irony were not easy for most Americans to grasp at the time.So too Fleming's subversive sense of what at last became known as the "anti-hero" - a man as ruthless as his enemies, able to seduce and destroy women with a glance, then quietly order breakfast in a luxury hotel as if nothing happened. For Fleming, this was a means of preserving the "hard-boiled" detective tradition while at the same time raising uncomfortable questions about what it meant to live comfortably middle-class in cold-war England. Never pointed enough to threaten middle-class readers, but enough to raise their anxiety level to the point of continued interest in the James Bond series.There's none of that here - the romance is played straight, and the only sophistication comes in the gambling scene. The rest bulls through or stumbles along as one might expect from an American genre thriller of the time.The major plus factors here are the performances. Most of the cast is miscast, but performs energetically despite that; Peter Lorre performs very weakly, but he happens to be perfectly cast - he is the definitive Le Chiffre! That surprising discovery is reason enough to find this show and give it a view, at least for Bond aficionados.
7 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Interesting but not actually that good., 23 June 2002 Author: Jon Washbrook from Framlingham, England
This film is a bit of an oddity. It was a live TV play, made a decade before Sean Connery appeared in Dr No. It's nothing like the Bond films we all know and love - anyone expecting action set-pieces will be disappointed as the whole play/film takes place on 2 sets.THE GOOD POINTS: 1. A rare little gem, bringing James Bond to the screen for the first time. 2. One of the closest adaptations of Ian Fleming's works. 3. Peter Lorre - very good villain.THE BAD POINTS: 1. Renaming James Bond as "Card-Sense Jimmy Bond". Oh. My. God. 2. Making Bond a Yank. Americans seem to have this need to take credit away from the Brits for everything (Don't even get me started on U-571). 3. They made Felix Leiter a Brit and renamed him Clarence. Sigh...Anyway, gripes aside it IS worth seeking out if you're a fan. It's available in 2 versions as far as I am aware. The version I have is about an hour long, but there are rumours of a longer version which continues from where the other left off in which the villain returns from the dead to carry on the fight a bit more.
A respectable first attempt at James Bond (SPOILERS), 28 August 2007 Author: (evakajetaniak) from Winnipeg, Manitoba
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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
Add another review
