Casino Royale (1967)

My dear young friends lets set this straight the movie was filmed in 1966 and was co-writen by Woody Allen himself. The movie is and was ment to be a parody of Bond movies. In the sixties (long before most of you were born) they liked making fun of the establishment ie. The Man or in this case big budget movie studios and their work. They decided to use the name Casino Royale for two reasons, first Boraccolli (spelling may be off) who has produced and funded the Bond movies all these years decided not to pay for the rights to use the name on first Bond movie (didn't know if it would pay off) so they did. Second fans of Bond wanted a movie with the name and it was a good joke to use it before the establishment could.
So No this was not the first Bond movie and No this was not a screenplay of the book BUT yes this was the first movie with the name. The second came out a few years ago when they changed the Bond movie formula and we got a blond Bond with no futuristic toys. They decided to start at the begining and do it the way Ian Fleming wrote it in the fifties only modernized. Any Questions ... Look it up and don't ask me.   See 3 other replies

Thanks for posting like you know everything but really don't.
Original was 1954...
http://www.amazon.com/Casino-Royale-Original-James-Bond/dp/6301308913   See 3 other replies

yeah, this definitely wasn't made before Dr. No. Look at the title. 1967. Dr. No came out in 1962. Thanks for playing.   See 3 other replies

Guys, this was the FIRST James Bond movie to be created however, it was so bad that is was buried in the archives of movies. It wasn't until the story was changed a bit to bring huge audiences, Therefore Dr. No is now considered the first James Bond....   See 3 other replies

This is nowhere near the book, the book starts in the Casino, bond has black hair, and does not wear that silly outfit. The conversation in the car with the lions never happens. He started gambling at the casino well before his mission because he wanted to scope the tables, to work his way up to playing Le Chiffre. That was the gist of the first chapter.This is a mockery of Bond films, worse of a mockery than the newer one. I was actually really disappointed in the latter, seeing it after I had read the book. The time line was very twisted, but I could see why it was modernized; however, I think I would have enjoyed seeing the 1950's bond. It would have made things a little more authentic. Though after seeing this I can appreciate the modern dexterity the new director has. This version starts off like a Monty Python movie, and that's just not what I want to see in a Bond film. I expect that from The Naked Gun or maybe Austin Power, which were both great Bond/Spy parodies.In all actuallity I didn't watch the whole movie, in fact, after I saw Bond looked like some wealthy British politician with grey hair in this version, I noticed the attention to detail was really tarnished, and stopped watching the movie. Maybe someday, I'll try to watch it, but I'd rather spend the time reading the books.Anyone that hasn't read the book I recommend you do so, because Ian Flemming was a much more exceptional writer than even Broccoli was a producer. The story is much more compelling, realistic, and more gruesome in the book.I'm sure if Flemming was alive at the time of this movie, he would have been thoroughly disappointed.   See 5 other replies

The story of this film is a bit sad and tragic. They started with the Bond book, meaning to make a real James Bond movie... then all hell broke loose. Production problems and all that led them to try and salvage the pick by turning it into a comedy and then more production problems... while you're watching it you can tell that it is like three movies edited together to make some sort of insane cognitive story line that never really makes any sense, but hell it's a fun parody.   See 5 other replies

Yeah. The remake isn't at all a remake, but the actual movie version.   See 5 other replies