Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Eric Stevenson This is the oldest parody movie I could find. Nowadays, we have horrendous spoof movies like "Disaster Movie" and it's sad to say that this might have set a precedent for those terrible movies. Granted, this is still "Airplane!" compared to those other movies. This is technically the worst James Bond movie. I said that I had already seen every James Bond movie ever made and this one was not an official one. It's also the longest spoof movie I've ever seen.That's a main flaw. It's mostly really rushed at the end and it isn't spread out well enough for all of these jokes. Interestingly enough, this may have set forth the idea that James Bond was a code name as it is here. A pity such a popular theory had to come from such a subpar movie. I will defend it a little on the grounds that it was the first of its kind and they didn't know what to work with. There's too many goofy things here like the cartoony cloud pills and the UFO that it comes off as stupid rather than funny. **

totallyaparent This film is a mess, one unrelated scene spliced together in the editing room with another. One of the reason it's so chaotic is the amount of directors (5 overall) The directors had no contact with each other, yet somehow managed to produce a passable film. The film's production had problem after problem, so much problems that I wonder how it was finished.--PLOT-- David Niven is brought out of retirement due to the assassination of British secret agents, you may wonder why I didn't put James Bond in David Niven's place. The problem with that is that they're MORE THAN ONE. I won't spoil anything else. --- The film is passable due to the good aspects. The special effect are brilliant and still look quite realistic today. The casting is good. There are sometimes alright jokes. The music is absolutely brilliant and there are plenty of good scenes in the film. --- Casino Royale could of been better. If it had one director and it wasn't nearly 2 and a half hours. It's still worth a look though due to the effect, music and the pure fun of certain scenes.

MovieLover37539 I didn't realize this was a spoof of James Bond until I started watching it. Even then, I got a fair way in before I realized, because it doesn't hit you over the head with the fact. I thought I'd missed out on a classic Bond film, and got rather excited. While it wasn't what I expected, I still enjoyed it.As with most spoofs there are boring lulls between jokes, and some things are exaggerated until they are no longer funny, assuming they were to begin with. The story is a bit hard to follow at times too. However, there are some well done and humorous moments, and it features an impressive cast.Overall I liked it. It's not something to go out of your way to see. Nor is it a good choice for a movie night. But it's well suited for an afternoon, when you're bored, and there is nothing on TV.

merrywater I dig the 60s spy movies. Yes, I truly love the era; it had a lot of class and sheer elegance. I love psychedelic music, and I love Peter Sellers, Burt Bacharach and Dusty Springfield too, but this is a completely inscrutable meltdown. Too many flavors and no recipe.Allegedly a spoof. Did people dig this back then? According to Wikipedia, Time labeled it "incoherent and vulgar vaudeville". It certainly doesn't work today.There are a number of similarities to the excellent "Deadlier than the male" of the same year which, on the contrary,is both stylish and amusing.A crackpot product, in the junkiest sense...