Casino Royale (1967) User Reviews

What did I just watch?

[coryandginger-79132 · 1/10 · 4 November 2018]

Oh my God, there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to this movie. I might have enjoyed this movie at age five, but as a functioning adult I found it to be utterly ridiculous.

Can't believe how bad this really was!

[merlin9911 · 1/10 · 11 July 2012]

I remember watching this as a kid and it was funny, but I can't for the life of me remember why now.

I have seen some stinkers, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Loose Shoes, Bloodsucking Redneck Vampires...and this one is every bit as good.

Yes, it is dated, but the problem is deeper. It really looks like they just chopped up a bunch of scraps of skits and random junk from the bottom of the inspiration pile and called it a movie. And it succeeded mostly by false pretenses. It had enough big marquee names to make people go to the theater thinking they were actually going to see them acting in a movie. Wonder how many of these folks were embarrassed to see their name hooked to this film.

It fails on so many levels, BUT it did take enough people in to pay out well.

Ouch!

[Meatfarmer · 1/10 · 7 December 2002]

What a horrible, horrible film!!!

"Casino Royale" must truly be one of the worst films ever created. At least it must be the worst ever misuse of a great cast: Peter Sellers, David Niven, Woody Allen, Orson Welles, Deborah Kerr...

Some bad films actually become tolerable or even funny just because they are so bad. "Casino Royale" cannot even accomplish that. It is just an embarrassing failure to tell a lame, confused story about a lot of people named James Bond.

2 hours and ten minutes of pain

[solitaryman2004 · 1/10 · 15 August 1999]

Please do not waste your time with this movie. Do not be fooled by the star-filled cast. Except for scenes by Woody Allen, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It moves slowly, it makes little sense, the jokes are un-funny, the acting is mediocre. I rented this movie because a friend (now, I wonder) recommended it. Save your time. You have been warned. Peter Sellers, David Niven, Orson Welles, and Woody A. all film geniuses, but all their talent can not save this sucker. Arrest the director and writer for felonious assault on good cinema!

A jaw-dropping disaster (SPOILERS)

[A_Friend_of_Sarah_Connor · 1/10 · 2 November 2007]

Before getting to the actual review of the film, a word of warning: 1967's "Casino Royale" has nothing to do with the superior 2006 adaptation of Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel. In fact, it's not part of Eon Productions "official" series of films because it was made without any input from the producers at the time, Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Salzman. Unfortunately, that's not the only reason that it's largely been forgotten by mainstream audiences; it probably has more to do with the fact that the film (a term I use very loosely because the plot is so episodic) is almost unwatchable.

When asked to name a spy spoof, most people usually think of Mike Myers' "Austin Powers" series or "Die Another Day" (sorry, turns out that's an "official" entry in the Bond franchise). But predating Mr. Myers' and his "unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanisms" was this movie, produced by Charles K. Feldman and directed by no less than 5 people (that right there should be an indicator of the movie's quality). Since Feldman had little to no chance against the official series if he was to make a "straight" adaptation of the 1953 book, he decided to produce a film that was the exact opposite: a spoof that parodied the exaggerated ridiculousness of the Bond films. I can appreciate this--I enjoy the "Austin Powers" movies because they're clever and sometimes hysterical. The problem with "Casino Royale" isn't just that it's not in the least coherent, but that it's just not funny.

Surprisingly, the first ten minutes of exposition sets up a good situation. The real Sir James Bond (David Niven) is enjoying his retirement from the Secret Service when agents all over the world start dying. M (or McTarry, who knows?), played by John Huston, calls on Bond to find out what's going on. He refuses, and for some reason, his mansion is blown to smithereens and I believe M dies (since he's absent for the rest of the movie and I read somewhere that he does. I obviously couldn't have gotten this while watching the movie, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention). The remainder of the movie easily explains why marijuana is recommended while viewing, with scenes making little sense and everyone being codenamed 'James Bond' by the end.

Most of the film plays out like an extended, recent episode of "Saturday Night Live". The scenes in the McTarry Mansion are especially dreadful and tiresome, adding nothing to the plot except 15 minutes of unfunny padding, while the Casino Royale, which is where the movie gets it's title from, is shoehorned into the script and only seems like an excuse to have Orson Welles show up and play Le Chiffre in a less than interesting gambling scene. But nothing compares to one of the most bizarre and ludicrous endings I've ever seen. And you've guessed it, it's painfully unfunny and cringe-inducing.

Believe it or not, buried within this mess are three things that save the movie from getting a big fat zero. Half a star goes to the musical score by Burt Bacharach, which is a breezy soundtrack that fits the sporadic nature of what's unfolding on screen. The other half goes to the amazing cast, which includes Niven, Welles, Huston, Peter Sellers, George Raft, Jacqueline Bisset, Deborah Kerr, Woody Allen, a cameo by Peter O'Toole and (according to IMDb) an appearance by the then unknown David Prowse. On top of that, there's apparently 7 actors that could be found in an official Bond movie: Ursula Andress, Angela Scoular, Vladek Sheybal, John Hollis, Burt Kwouk, Caroline Munro, and Milton Reid. So it's too bad that everyone, especially Allen, seems to be doing what ever they want. Finally, the auction scenes are the best in the movie, not that they follow any logical narrative, but because they offered the only chuckles during the entire running time, which is 130 minutes too long. The only other times that I was laughing was at the ineptness of every other production value.

With a small army of writers and directors, it's hardly a surprise that the plot (or plots) is/are uneven, characters switch sides without reason, and every joke/gag falls flat on it's face because of poor timing. The point of a comedy is to make us laugh, which is what something like the "Scary Movie" films succeed in. I bring them up because while they have the same scatter-brained humor of "Casino Royale", at least you can actually follow what's going on! The troubles that plagued the production, including Peter Sellers being fired before he finished shooting and the budget going way out of control, prove how durable the Bond series is, because "Casino Royale" still managed to rake in some money. Just goes to show how such a misfire like this, along with every criminal mastermind, cannot kill our favorite spy. 1/10

Unwatchable

[weallfloatdownhere · 1/10 · 28 October 2006]

I watched this movie based on the review on IMDb but I have to say that it's unwatchable by today standards, the plot is totally ridiculous, and although you have a cast full of stars, you get nothing from them because of the silly lines they have to say... Also, it's slow paced and with 131 minutes of duration it would surely benefit from a 'director's cut' to put the movie in 90 minutes, (although 60 minutes would be fine also). It's totally outdated and you can't enjoy it even a little bit. I love old movies but this one really hit into my nerves, because of its lousy script and poor direction... I think the reviewer who gave the ten stars to this movie should be punished for his lack of perspective.

worst film ever made

[larsgr · 1/10 · 8 January 2006]

Yes, forget about "Plan 9 from outer space", this is it! This film is much worse than any of the films usually rated as "worst ever", Ed Wood would never have lowered himself to this level of imbecility and sloppiness!

But why did this film, that featured some of the greatest names in film history, people who really should have known what they were doing, turn out so bad? First of all we have the James Bond-mania in the 60's, people would go and see the film no matter what. Secondly,my theory is that the film is a case of the wrong people at the wrong place. Maybe the film turned out so extraordinarily bad,not in spite of, but because of all the "great names"?

When Casino Royale was released in 1967 it was one of most expensive films ever made, much more expensive than You only live twice, the "real" Bond film of the same year. How could so much money have been spent on rubbish? Maybe it's because no one dared to say "no" or "stop" to the great geniuses Orson Wells and John Houston(among many other geniuses)?

As a whole the film is unwatchable, its a comedy but its never funny. It's not even bad in an interesting or amusing way, like the films of Ed wood. It's boring. It's stupid. And above all its sloppy.

One scene very typical of Casino Royale is the gambling scene: Peter Sellers is Bond(at least i think so) and Orson Wells is the villain le Chiffre. Orson Wells likes doing some magic tricks, he gets to do that. Peter Sellers favorite party trick is to imitate indians and Chinese people, he gets to do that. But why does this belong in the picture? And why is it in any way funny?

Of all the bad things in the film must also be mentioned the music by the very famous(of course)composer Burt Bacharach. It's extremely annoying!

Terrible

[Narhloki · 1/10 · 16 October 2003]

We went into this film knowing it was a spoof and a comedy, but not only was it not funny it was completely baffling. Was over 2 hours long but even so seemed to be missing vital plot points and leaped from one ridiculous scenario to another. What were they on? You will need some of whatever it was to understand and or sit though this film.

Plain Awful!

[robintheusa2001 · 1/10 · 23 December 2001]

I admit that I had to turn this off after an hour. The only good bit up to that point was a one minute scene with Woody Allen which had me in hysterics (Woody is the only reason I rented this). If I had known there was no more Woody Allen appearances forthcoming I would have switched it off sooner.

Avoid and be wise with your time!!!

Lame

[mbdhound · 1/10 · 13 August 2003]

Great cast. Awful movie. What a waste. Even Deborah Kerr is subpar. Why this even got made at all is attributable to the fact that Hollywood wanted to make more James Bond movies, always excellent box office attractions, especially in the 1960's. This one is too camp and over the top to be funny even as a spoof.

CASINO ROYALE,...What A Total WASTE!

[ribarproductions · 1/10 · 5 June 2006]

Despite a huge budget, despite a stellar cast, despite an endless array of beautiful babes, despite the outstanding Sets, Costumes, and a great Musical Score,..."CASINO ROYALE" was, and is even some 40 years later, a Total Flop and a Complete Waste! If you're a dedicated "James Bond" Fan, you'll instinctively resent the over-the-top schmaltz in the production of this film. The storyline is so disjointed and so lacking in continuity, it's extremely difficult to follow the plot. Add to that, Cowboys riding their horses through a Gambling Casino, as well as the insertion of the Keystone Cops,...and what you end up with in my opinion, is little more than a big pile of film sewage. I kept looking for something funny to laugh at, but this film is so "Stuck On Stupid", it's a difficult task, indeed!

Rubbish

[1bilbo · 1/10 · 25 December 2020]

Absolute drivel - badly acted, script that doesn't make sense and not even funny.

Nothing more to add.

DO NOT i repeat DO NOT watch that

[k_rukov · 1/10 · 28 July 2017]

I don't know why i continued watching after the 30 minutes mark ... i am missing 2 hours of my life. I don't know how do describe the boorishness and ridiculousness of this movie. There is nothing Bond-like in this episode of the movie saga. I am extremely disappointed in the actors as well .. poor job at a high level

An Incredible And Rare Waste Of Time & Talent

[timdalton007 · 1/10 · 15 August 2015]

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.

Get Out the Straight Jacket

[caseythejerkman · 1/10 · 14 February 2004]

If you make it through this whole mess of a movie and claim you thoroughly enjoyed it, it might be time to commit yourself (I should know. A friend of mine that's kinda nuts says he loves it.). This movie induces restlessness throughout its running time. If it were not for the oh, so many beautiful women romping around in sexy late-60's style, I would have walked out of the room and prayed that the tape "mysteriously" deteriorated (That way I wouldn't have to buy my friend another copy.). Ursula Andress was gorgeous... Anyway, this is your classic (maybe the prototype) example of a movie trying to be funny and not succeeding even once. But if you think Tom Jones deserved Best Picture of the Year and that piece of crap with the Unknown Comic was a laugh riot, by all means, rent away. Good look. I still don't know or care what happened for the whole two hours of my misery.

The worst movie of all time! Honest!

[geri_sand · 1/10 · 8 June 2006]

First of all I would like to mention, that I'd give this film "- infinity", rather than 1. I decided to see this nonsense only because Woody Allen was in it. But even he couldn't make me laugh, which I thought to be impossible. To me this was the most humourless logic-less stew of a movie ever created. Before I had the bad luck to see it my number one was Soul Plane. But not any more. This one was even duller. It had no plot, no main character, no common sense whatsoever and it made me fall asleep several times. For your life's sake do NOT NOT NOT see this movie, you risk a permanent brain damage! Or at least the most boring 131 minutes of your life, which is as terrible.

The one film that shouldn't have been made

[policy134 · 1/10 · 26 July 2005]

With such a high concept and such a terrific cast, there was little doubt that this movie would succeed, right? Wrong! Casino Royale is an overlong mess from start to finish. How could they use Peter Sellers and not make him the least bit funny? That's just one of the huge stars that walk in and out of this bore and they all look like they just stepped out of a sideshow carnival and just happened to be on a movie set.

The plot about having multiple Bonds could have been funny but is dealt with like a six-grade school play. Like other films with too many directors (I think there were three credited) the mix doesn't stand for higher quality. It was a precursor to the limitless 90's films with cameos galore (eg. Austin Powers in Goldmember) that somehow almost always had some enjoyment to them. Not this one. Unlike the real James Bond movies the material is perceived as dead serious where it's supposed to be parody. But like everybody who enjoys movies I'm glad I saw it, reminding me that no one is unflappable, not even the greatest of the greatest.

What was I thinking!

[Theoden_of_ODU · 1/10 · 11 October 1999]

When I rent James Bond movies, I want them to make sense. This movie is not one of them. I want someone who can sit through all of this movie to tell me what the plot was. They made this SPOOF without a plot. I call it a SPOOF because this does not fit in the James Bond universe at all, there is too much useless comedy and not enough plot, I could almost gag. I think if this was a real Bond movie it would be the worst one. This movie's Bonds should get their License to Kill revoked. I give it * out of *****.

Gives junk a bad name...

[horsegoggles · 1/10 · 2 January 2012]

I remember seeing this in a theater when it came out. I got up and left before 30 minutes had passed. I tried watching it on Netflix a couple weeks ago, hoping that I had just been in a bad mood the first time. I bailed after 15 minutes. There is nothing good to be said about this film. It was a mess in 1967 and it hasn't improved with age. I don't watch movies for any other reason than to be entertained, and to say that there was anything entertaining about this movie would be a bold faced lie. I'll leave the sophisticated analysis to the experts. My simplistic opinion rates it at less than junk. Unless you've got 15 minutes to waste, let this one pass. UPDATE: For fun I recently started reading reviews of this mess starting with HATED IT. I noticed that as the ratings began to rise above 1, the FOUND HELPFUL numbers started coming up. Not sure what that proves, but it's interesting.

My God

[OriginalSheady · 1/10 · 20 November 2006]

my god, what an awful mess. It is an offence for it to carry the name Bond in vain like that. The plot was all over the place, half of it didn't make sense, and was a load of nonsense and twaddle. It was ridiculous, and degenerated into a fight between men in tuxedos and cowboys and Indians! Sir James shook hands with people in mid fight, and when they all died, they all appeared in heaven. It wasn't funny, just stupid. Dr Noah's hiccoughs were cartoon?!?!? My God. The only positive thing in the whole film was Ursula Andress, who looked amazing in this film and, IMO, looked much better than when in Dr No. Otherwise, a complete waste of time. You want to cringe at so many bits. Thank God that this film is only rarely associated with the name "Casino Royale" since the new film, and even less associated with the Bond series. Ludicrous!

Really bad

[tecnojunkie · 1/10 · 6 April 2020]

This is probably the worst movie I've ever seen. Even as a spoof, it was just bad.

Seriously what was this about?

[miracruzgar · 1/10 · 20 August 2022]

I recently started watching Bond movies first time ever. I have seen very bad ones until this since I am watching chronologically but what was this? I needed to read a description of the plot to make sense about what was going on. Wow.

Forget the Cooks... Blame the Ingredients

[TheFearmakers · 1/10 · 9 September 2021]

The infamous James Bond Spy Spoof CASINO ROYALE from the much-too-colorful 1960's could be deemed unbelievably awful but with a collection of writers and directors (including Val Guest and John Huston) desperately herding their all-star cast into what wound up resembling a high-priced TV variety show, it IS believable to have turned out so... well... unbelievably awful...

Chopped into vignettes, by far the most awkward has David Niven's retired/reserved James Bond in Scotland (some kind of homage to Sean Connery) being tempted by a castle of gorgeous "daughters" of John Huston's newly-killed M...

Which could have inspired "Castle Anthrax" from MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (both have tons of sexy British girls failing to entice a basically sexless male) while the anything-goes cast-of-hundreds barnstorming climax might've providing Mel Brooks' his own BLAZING SADDLES finale...

One person ACTUALLY inspired was the completely wasted comedic talent of a young Woody Allen, who witnessed the overboard extravagance and thereafter made his own low-budget quality comedies (yet even he lifts a firing squad bit for LOVE AND DEATH)... Here he plays who turns out the main-main villain, neurotic nephew of Niven's Bond...

And that's only after Orson Welles's Le Chiffre, Ian Fleming's first literary Bond antagonist and the built-up menace throughout, is "vanished" before the final act since he didn't get along with not only the biggest drag but who provides the worst performance in Peter Sellers as Evelyn Tremble, a monotone gambling expert strategically pretending to be James Bond 007, and here, without a funny bone in his body, most of the quips fall flat as if intentionally...

Seller's overall input, including psychedelic hallucinatory-sequences to please hippie audiences, makes Niven's (along with a lusty Deborah Kerr's) rudimentary Scottish segment seem hilarious by comparison as he's romanced by Jacqueline Bisset and the leading "Bond Girl" in real DR NO Bond Girl Ursula Andress, almost as pointless as Joanna Pettet as a modern Mati Hara, actually the orphaned daughter of...

Well the technical stuff really doesn't matter and seems thrown in... just in case something/anything resembling a plot might stick: Even for a spoof of a genre with twists around every corner, these are simply bad detours, making CASINO ROYALE a waste for fans of the Bond franchise or any of the actors or actresses herein...

That's except the most humble and unassuming: As Miss Moneypenny's daughter, Barbara Bouchet tries her genuine best to play along with the famous cast... all seeming asleep at the wheel of an endless/overlong trainwreck.

This is the WORST movie I have ever seen!

[No Nickname · 1/10 · 25 November 1999]

This movie is terrible! I have seen hundreds of movies, and this was by far the worst! It didn't even deserve the one star rating I gave it! I am glad it is not counted as a James Bond film, because it would give James Bond a bad name!! To start, it doesn't even have the traditional barrel and blood beginning, or the cool songs with silhouettes of naked ladies on the screen. It plays some classical music and just lists the peoples names and who they play. Now, lets not even talk about special effects. THERE WERE NONE!!!!! No, wait, I take that back. Two or three times in the movie they shined a red light of "James Bond's" face making him look like a cherry. And what about action? There biggest -- and only -- action scene is when so girl sprays a few people with a fire extinguisher to get away. That is it! No one gets killed (except for M, and they just talk about it, never show it). The movie has a stupid storyline, too. "James Bond" comes out of retirement to stop two underground organizations involved in gambling. He is some old guy that says the new James Bond (referring to the ones in the traditional films) gives James Bond a bad name because they are all women-crazy, and have so many secret gadgets that they are a disgrace to spy organizations. This guy is incredibly stupid, on top of all other things. When he takes over as M he changes ever secret agent's name to James Bond 007 to confuse the enemy. What is up with that?!? Also, the first 45 minutes of the movie have nothing to do with "James Bond." It shows him at his house, M "dies," and then he is at the house of M's wife and daughters, where he just eats, talks with them, and overall says nothing about M. Then, about 45 minutes of the way through they try to kill him with a bomb (which regretfully didn't work). After that, he was on camera for maybe 30 minutes the rest of the movie, which is bad because this movie is about 135 minutes long. I mean, for 30 minutes some stupid girl tries to seduce this writer to become a secret agent, which I never got the point of. She has him try on about 50 outfits and asked him if ". . . your personality changed with each costume?" There is no point to that part. What about the rating? It was given 3 stars and is said to be comedy. Not a single joke was told in the whole movie, but it was kind of funny to see the crappy acting, but not worth the time it took to watch the movie. I don't know what category this would fit into. Not comedy, action, drama, horror, or mystery (though that is probably the best bet). To end, the one star rating I gave this movie is a hundred times more than it deserved. I would be willing to bet that the Blair Witch Project cost more to make then this low budget, crappy acting, and terrible story-line movie.

This film is sacrilegious for serious Bond fans

[aquadog737 · 1/10 · 9 April 2010]

If you are an Austin Powers fan this is a great study of how that concept came to light. If you are a serious Bond fan (as this reviewer) this film is sacrilegious and should be avoided at all costs. The only thing this film has in common with Ian's first Bond story is the gambling and the use of the James Bond name which is used too much and treated like toilet paper. Some good actors and directors and would have appreciated this effort much more (in terms of a Blazing saddles genre) had they not used the Bond name or Casino Royale title. A true shame Ian's first book was tied up because of the Climax TV performance (Barry Nielson's TV portrayal) which is included as bonus footage. This unfortunately was probably Ian's and Bond's big break but it opened the door later for the story to be hijacked by this group. Thank god Barbara and team finally had the chance to do it right with Craig. It would have been cool however to see Connery start out rough and then work his way into the suave character we all new. Hoping to see Barbara and team develop Craig this way. Hint, hint.