IslandGuru Who payed the critics

Bardlerx Strictly average movie

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Matthew Kresal If you thought that the first screen Bond outing was Dr. No and that Sean Conery was the first Bond, you'd be wrong. Coming the better part of a decade before Dr. No was made and Goldfinger firmly established the image of Bond in the public consciousness, Bond came first to American television screens. For one hour in October 1954, Ian Fleming's first Bond novel was broadcast live on CBS. Despite the films that followed, it remains interesting viewing.Despite being merely an hour in length, the script Anthony Ellis and Charles Bennett is a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the original novel. The central plot of the novel, of Bond going to a French casino to bankrupt Le Chiffre at the baccarat tables and thus ensure his death at the hands of his Soviet paymasters, is front and center here. Much of the incidental events from the novel are in this version as well including one of Le Chiffre's henchmen threatening Bond with a gun hidden in a cane during the game. Even when incidents from the novel are difficult to do on screen to network censors and the limitations of live television production, versions of them still appear. These include an attack on Bond while entering the casino and even a version of Bond being tortured after the game in present though both mean that it's less gruesome than what both the novel and the 2006 EON film presented us with though it certainly seems to be no less painful for Bond. In a way the adaptation here is more faithful to its source material than many of EON's subsequent adaptations of Fleming's novels.Where it is less faithful is in its casting. Perhaps the most notable change, and the one most likely to hanker fans of both the novels and the later films, was the decision to make Bond an American in a move that seems to have been made to pander to the American audience who would hopefully tune in. Actor Barry Nelson (who is perhaps better known for his role as the hotel manager who interviews Jack Nicholson's character in the opening of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining) was cast in the role of "Card Sense Jimmy" Bond who was an agent of a fictional spy agency called Combined Intelligence. Nelson's Bond reflects little of the character that Fleming wrote in the original novel with his squared jaw and lack of charm which at times seems more in the vain of the gumshoe characters out of countless film noir works from the period. Yet Nelson is also able at times to show a more vulnerable character, especially in the torture sequence, which the EON films wouldn't bring out until Dalton and Craig took on the role decades later. It's a credible attempt at bringing Bond to life but it's also one that shows just how crucial the casting of that lead role can be.Other members of the cast work better. The characters of Vesper Lynd and Bond's French ally Rene Mathis are combined into a single character named Valerie Mathis played by Linda Christian. Christian does an admirable job bringing the first Bond Girl to life as a character though the adaptation not only combines the characters together but also gives them a past relationship that echoes Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca made a dozen years before. Another departure from the novel, and an interesting reversal of what was done with the Bond character, is the casting of the Australian actor Michael Pate in the role of British agent Clarence Leiter who takes the place of CIA agent Felix Leiter. Pate does an admirable job though the friendship between this particular Leiter and Bond seems a bit forced, especially in the opening minutes of the production. Like Nelson's Bond, the performances are credible but they're also far more admirable attempts as well.The most notable member of the 1954 Casino Royale cast though would be its villain. Playing Le Chiffre is none other than Peter Lorre, an iconic character actor notable for films including 1931's M and 1941's The Maltese Falcon. Lorre was perfect casting for the role and he brings a wonderful sense of menace mixed with charm to the first Bond villain, something that's especially present during the interactions between Bond and Le Chiffre during the first part of the production. Where Lorre really shines is during the last act when he taunts Bond as he's being tortured, mixing the charm and menace together in equal measure. If anything from this 1954 production pre-echoes what EON would do later, it's Lorre's Le Chiffre and that isn't a bad thing at all.For Bond fans, the 1954 Casino Royale makes for interesting viewing. Coming nearly a decade before the Eon films that have now firmly rooted the character for most people, it is a fascinating look at bringing Bond to the screen. Even with its faults and limitations of the format in which it was made, it remains at least a curiosity and at best something that die-hard fans of Her Majesty's secret servant should view at least once.

don-792-214358 Even allowing for the fact that this was a product if early live TV, this "adaptation" of the Fleming novel is quite dreadful. There were a lot of truly great, even legendary, productions for early live TV.The principal problem with this episode is the casting of Barry Nelson as Bond -- and changing Bond to an American. Nelson completely fails to bring Bond to life. He totally lacks the charisma and dangerousness of James Bond. There is also zero chemistry between Nelson and Linda Christian, the supposed "love interest." Even Peter Lorre seems to be sleepwalking through his performance as Le Chiffre.The second fatal flaw in this production is that it completely fails to develop any real believable tension or sense of something important being at risk. The pacing is pretty plodding throughout.Some of the weakness of this production is in being forced to condense the story into 50 minutes. There is zero room for character development. However, I don't believe Nelson would have given us a credible James Bond even with two hours to do it in.So, this production is of historical interest as the first filmed adaptation of a James Bond story, but not of much interest otherwise.

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.

Bogmeister 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).