This is not the Daniel Craig movie.
Having a star cast that would put any big budget Hollywood production to shame, unfortunately falls short of common sense. The list of stars is endless. Peter Sellers, Orson Wells, Woody Allen, David Niven, Ursula Andress, Deborah Kerr, William Holden, ..... and so on. I think it is not the list of stars that was the problem but the list of directors. Five credited and one uncredited directors. Almost a dozen writers most of the writing being rewriting and done mid-schedule.
It is based on a novel by Ian Fleming.... barely.
I had wanted to see this after watching the movie The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. I had very high expectations from it. The movie has no clear structure or theme. Most of the jokes fall flat and the eccentricities of the actors written into the script.
The characters are too many. Although the idea of having numerous characters in a satire is popular and successfully used in recent times, and the idea of having multiple themes in a parody has been seen, this movie clearly is not a good example.
Spies, thrillers, slapstick, real spies, children of fictional spies and real spies, atom bombs, sex comedy....well, it gets a little off.
BUT, it was one of the most expensive movie of its time, and it made money. Yes, actual profit. Many critics lampooned it, but few, perhaps very few, thought it was a 'psychedelic masterpiece' [not my words.]
I has been about 50 years since it has been made. I think enough time has passed for it to stand the test of time. It may have grown to become a cult classic or a source of inspiration for future satirists, but I doubt it has happened.
Never the less, I must credit its strengths. The acting is good. Everyone brings their best to the table. Although, greatly disorganised, if we were to ignore it, or perhaps, see its structure as its strength, we may see it as an example of cinematic cubism. I don't think any later movie maker has credited this movie as an inspiration, and I doubt anyone will, but I am sure, at some level, it has influenced the modern genre of comedy spoof i.e. Scary Movie and company.
I think, my expectations were very unrealistic. Now that I think about it, in the movie The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, Sellers is greatly dissatisfied with his work and the movie.
Casino Royale was written, like all James Bond books, to be a spy-thriller. Making a spoof of it was a masterstroke and a blunder at the same time. I do not think, if it had fewer directors or better writing or all the advantages it could have had, it would have become a masterpiece. The genre is unfortunately self-limiting and very few works of spoof-satire have transcended the genre.
Overall, it could have been better. Or, couldn't it?
Casino Royale (1967 film)
Having a star cast that would put any big budget Hollywood production to shame, unfortunately falls short of common sense. The list of stars is endless. Peter Sellers, Orson Wells, Woody Allen, David Niven, Ursula Andress, Deborah Kerr, William Holden, ..... and so on. I think it is not the list of stars that was the problem but the list of directors. Five credited and one uncredited directors. Almost a dozen writers most of the writing being rewriting and done mid-schedule.
It is based on a novel by Ian Fleming.... barely.
I had wanted to see this after watching the movie The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. I had very high expectations from it. The movie has no clear structure or theme. Most of the jokes fall flat and the eccentricities of the actors written into the script.
The characters are too many. Although the idea of having numerous characters in a satire is popular and successfully used in recent times, and the idea of having multiple themes in a parody has been seen, this movie clearly is not a good example.
Spies, thrillers, slapstick, real spies, children of fictional spies and real spies, atom bombs, sex comedy....well, it gets a little off.
BUT, it was one of the most expensive movie of its time, and it made money. Yes, actual profit. Many critics lampooned it, but few, perhaps very few, thought it was a 'psychedelic masterpiece' [not my words.]
I has been about 50 years since it has been made. I think enough time has passed for it to stand the test of time. It may have grown to become a cult classic or a source of inspiration for future satirists, but I doubt it has happened.
Never the less, I must credit its strengths. The acting is good. Everyone brings their best to the table. Although, greatly disorganised, if we were to ignore it, or perhaps, see its structure as its strength, we may see it as an example of cinematic cubism. I don't think any later movie maker has credited this movie as an inspiration, and I doubt anyone will, but I am sure, at some level, it has influenced the modern genre of comedy spoof i.e. Scary Movie and company.
I think, my expectations were very unrealistic. Now that I think about it, in the movie The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, Sellers is greatly dissatisfied with his work and the movie.
Casino Royale was written, like all James Bond books, to be a spy-thriller. Making a spoof of it was a masterstroke and a blunder at the same time. I do not think, if it had fewer directors or better writing or all the advantages it could have had, it would have become a masterpiece. The genre is unfortunately self-limiting and very few works of spoof-satire have transcended the genre.
Overall, it could have been better. Or, couldn't it?
Casino Royale (1967 film)
No comments:
Post a Comment