Category: DEFAULT

Casino royale 1954 review

casino royale 1954 review

8. Mai Erstmal einen ganz herzlichen Dank MX87! Ich wollte schon immer mals Casino Royale von gucken, bin jedoch nie darauf gekommen. Casino Royale wurder erstmalig als eine Episode der TV-Serie "Climax" verfilmt. Es war die 3. Episode der 1. Staffel. Die Erstaustrahlung war am Casino Royale wurder erstmalig als eine Episode der TV-Serie "Climax" verfilmt. Es war die 3. Episode der 1. Staffel. Die Erstaustrahlung war am

As a result, much would be performed 'live', with the taping only made as a record of the airing. A lot of plays, stories, and novels were edited into half-hour and hour-long television programs, and "Casino Royale" was adapted, by Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis, for an episode of the "Climax!

The villain's name remained 'Le Chiffre', although his method of torture caning one's genitals in an open-seated rattan chair was 'cleaned up' As Bond, veteran American actor Barry Nelson was smug, confident, and independent, preferring a 'lone hand' to outside interference.

I met Nelson in the early s, and asked if he remembered the production. He said he recalled little of it as the production was 'live' and he was very busy in a variety of projects , but that, he recalled, Peter Lorre, as Le Chiffre, had trouble remembering his lines, and ad-libbed a lot.

Within television's limitations, the basic plot of Bond beating an enemy agent at the gambling tables to prevent him from recouping 'lost' espionage funds is pretty faithful to the novel which was based on Fleming's own wartime experiences.

Despite this, the production is stagy with only two sets , rife with missed cues and flubs, and overripe performances. Lorre does make a good villain, however, certainly better than some of the later film ones!

All in all, the production offers novelty value, and little else A lot has to be forgiven here. First, this is a recording of a live performance - when something went wrong, they were stuck with it; and since this is cheaply made, they had little rehearsal time, so a quite a number of things go wrong.

Secondly, the surviving recording is incomplete and not very good. Third, the producers of the show were trying to make the British Ian Fleming's break-out novel accessible to American audiences only familiar with American espionage B-movies, a '50s genre that has not gotten preserved, so most people now will not be familiar with the drab back-alley feel of this show drawn from that genre.

And that the producers felt the need to go this route shows that they themselves really had little understanding of where Fleming was coming from - which was really Somerset Maugham's "Ashenden, or the British Agent," filmed in the early '30s by Alfred Hitchcock.

And really, prime Hitchcock is the director Fleming would have had in mind while writing this book. But despite his popularity, Hitchcock himself remained an anomaly in Hollywood throughout the '50s.

His ability to shock audiences was well known, but his capacity for sophisticated wit and subtle irony were not easy for most Americans to grasp at the time.

So too Fleming's subversive sense of what at last became known as the "anti-hero" - a man as ruthless as his enemies, able to seduce and destroy women with a glance, then quietly order breakfast in a luxury hotel as if nothing happened.

For Fleming, this was a means of preserving the "hard-boiled" detective tradition while at the same time raising uncomfortable questions about what it meant to live comfortably middle-class in cold-war England.

Never pointed enough to threaten middle-class readers, but enough to raise their anxiety level to the point of continued interest in the James Bond series.

There's none of that here - the romance is played straight, and the only sophistication comes in the gambling scene. The rest bulls through or stumbles along as one might expect from an American genre thriller of the time.

The major plus factors here are the performances. Most of the cast is miscast, but performs energetically despite that; Peter Lorre performs very weakly, but he happens to be perfectly cast - he is the definitive Le Chiffre!

That surprising discovery is reason enough to find this show and give it a view, at least for Bond aficionados.

No" was the first time James Bond appeared on movie screens, it was actually this television adaptation that the character was first seen at all.

Since this was on American television, though, Bond's nationality was changed so he became Jimmy Bond, a Yank.

Besides this distracting update, the story is very close to Ian Fleming's novel and most of the scenes are lifted directly from their source.

Bond is ordered to beat Le Chiffre so that his bosses would eliminate their own agent, causing great embarrassment to the organization.

It's fairly obvious that this was a live made-for-TV movie, with some technical screw-ups showing up here and there and the lack of a lot of different sets.

That being said, the hour long episode moves quickly, with Baccarat being explained for anyone who doesn't understand at the start.

There are also some funny bits, such as when Leiter manages to keep money away from one of Le Chiffre's henchmen.

The small cast works well together, even though the acting gets appropriately too theatrical at times for my taste.

Lorre is chilling as Le Chiffre, and fits Fleming's description quite nicely. Michael Pate as Leiter is pretty solid and a believable ally, while Linda Christian is the only weak link in the chain.

So what's the verdict on Barry Nelson, the first James Bond? He's definitely no Sean Connery, but handles himself well before the image of the secret agent was created in the film series.

His relaxed attitude helps to distract from the fact that Bond isn't British here. So even though the ending is a bit too tame Fleming's torture from the book would never have reached TV audiences from , the mini-movie makes up for it with a tense battle at the card table, some good acting, and a great espionage feel throughout.

Any Bond fan should at least try to find this and the average movie goer should do the same, just to see how James Bond's first mission played out.

JonTheGod 23 June This film is a bit of an oddity. A rare little gem, bringing James Bond to the screen for the first time.

One of the closest adaptations of Ian Fleming's works. Peter Lorre - very good villain. Making Bond a Yank. Americans seem to have this need to take credit away from the Brits for everything Don't even get me started on U They made Felix Leiter a Brit and renamed him Clarence.

Anyway, gripes aside it IS worth seeking out if you're a fan. It's available in 2 versions as far as I am aware.

The version I have is about an hour long, but there are rumours of a longer version which continues from where the other left off in which the villain returns from the dead to carry on the fight a bit more.

So, the first film about the famous British spy James Bond was not the "Dr. The first actor who played the was not Sean Connery.

First studio picture starring pro elegant mi6 agent is not Eon Productions. In , CBS director Gregory Ratoff Ian Fleming buys the film rights to the first novel of the famous series, in dollars, and the money at the time were not low.

After watching this television plays, 50 minutes long, I still have mixed feelings. Watch the first movie about the was my old dream, but I will not say that I am very pleased seen.

After all the action games that show recently, hardly somebody to watch the drama began 50 years ago, even the most about James Bond, except that loyal fans Bond as I am.

The role of the main character in this film takes Barry Nelson. On it remains ambiguous impression. Outwardly, he is not like any one of the actors performing the role of an agent later with two zeros in the official films.

Since it is hard to disagree - in appearance he is not like Bond, but as most of acting, then there is another matter. Watch or not watch your work.

I would recommend this movie for those who enjoys watching a film about the legendary spy. And if you look James Bond films only when nothing else to watch on TV, then you should refrain from watching this movie, and then you just go bad impression about the !

Early TV movie adaptation of 'Casino Royale' has the low key feeling of the original novel. The low budget both helps the movie and hinders it: The short run time is also a mixed bag: Peter Lorre is good as LeChiffre, and Michael Pate as Leiter or "Letter" as he's listed in the end credits is very likable, and perhaps would have made a better choice to play Bond here, but Barry Nelson was mediocre.

If he would have been more familiar with the character and not been doing a Humphrey Bogart impersonation, he might have been good.

He does fairly well when he's intensely grilling Valerie Mathis about the microphone LeChiffre planted in Bond's room, and he's adequate in the casino sequences, but falls flat during the climactic scenes.

This TV-movie is also marred by the fact that the love interest between Bond and the lead girl is almost completely overlooked here, as is Bond's contemplation of resignation and his subsequent double-cross by the girl; basically the entire fourth!

Maybe if it would have had a longer running time, and if the censors would have allowed it, they could have fleshed out some of these omitted story elements?

One of the villain's henchmen has a cane which doubles as a gun, which is a good touch; this particular scene follows the book closely, and is one of the better scenes in this film.

Before Sean Connery played Bond in 's big-screen "Dr. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. You may know the man and you may know the story, but have you ever seen the first ever James Bond motion picture?

Technically, this hour-long made-for-TV feature is the first time Bond was adapted for a medium outside of the original novels.

Despite that notoriety, this really isn't much to scream about. Maybe it was exciting TV back in , but after the onslaught of bigger and more prolific James Bond pictures, this little feature has not aged well at all.

Even on its own merits, the film offers a small smattering of struggles and thrills, but it's all really small-scale, bland, and not that exciting.

This is also a rather lame adaptation of Ian Flemming's book. At its core, the film uses a very simple structure: Bond enters casino, plays off against Le Chiffre, gets tortured, fights his way out, and that's it.

In both the novel and film, there is a lot more to it; both represented a more pronounced introduction or re-introduction for the '06 film for the iconic character, it marked the first encounter between Bond and SMERSH, and he has a significant relationship that would give the story more weight and mold him for future stories.

None of that carries through in this version. There are many small changes and a lot of huge cuts to the story, which trims this whole affair down to something barebones, shallow, and flimsy.

Among the various changes, James Bond is made into an American dude named Jimmy, Felix is renamed to Clarence for some reason, Vesper Lynd is nowhere to be seen, and is replaced by a female Mathis.

Worst of all, none of these people have any ounce of presence or charisma. Yeah, at its best is just simple-minded throwaway entertainment; at its worst, it's a mess.

The film naturally doesn't have much of a style to it, given its limitations as a TV production. Review of Casino Royale By Yannick D on 26 Mar By Riff J on 11 Apr By Donnie B on 12 Nov By Arch T 23 on 23 Jan By Heather C on 22 Jun By Sinisteris T on 10 Jun By Albertus A 83 on 23 Nov By Shane F 80 on 30 Oct By Kevin M 1, on 13 Nov By John Eric D on 28 Sep More reviews of this movie.

Review of Goldfinger Review of Diamonds Are Forever Impossible - Rogue Nation So, in all, Casino Royale is an interesting curiosity, but little else.

I only wonder what Fleming thought, if indeed he ever saw it. The version of Casino Royale is a delight to watch — a real window into a different era.

This film is far better than it should be. It should be unwatchable, but in fact it succeeds on almost every level. He plays it more or less straight, with a healthy dose of wit and surprising believability.

Very much like Dalton, as a matter of fact. Creepy, intelligent, witty, ruthless: The writing and directing are sharp, cleverly working within the live format and the limited number of sets and actors.

When the time comes for the baccarat scene with Le Chiffre, the viewer has enough information to follow the game and the directing keeps the pace from dragging.

Another hour or half-hour would do wonders to round off what is already a surprisingly smart and uncompromising little thriller.

Nelson is alright as Bond but it is rather jarring to have the character coming off more like John Wayne than Cary Grant.

Casino Royale was a great movie. Peter Lorre was an outstanding Le Chiffre. Clarence Leiter was exactly what a Bond ally should be, giving Bond some information but leaving the real focus on Bond.

I give this often-forgotten Bond treasure a thumbs up! The gritty black and white photography, for one, gives the piece a real film-noir feel that pulls the viewer into the raw suspense of Cold War espionage.

The characters are well cast and the acting fine. Peter Lorre brilliantly plays Le Chiffre and creates the most slimy and dispicible Bond villain to date.

Michael Pate is also perfect as a British Leiter, although it would have also been incredibly interesting to see him as Bond.

He is, in essence, what Bond would look like if Flemming had decided to make his character an American and change nothing else. So too is his scene at the Baccarat table.

James Bond Casino Royale Bond's task is to destroy the evil Le Chiffre, and his plan is to force him to lose a large sum of money at the gambling tables wolf 2 Casino Royale. The movie was called Casino Royale, based on the first novel by Ian Fleming. Chef de Parte Jean Del Val He is tasked with cleaning out communist agent Le Chiffre Peter Lorre, "Casablanca" in a game of baccarat. Top rated Caspian paddock recent Top rated. How the movie deviates from the book, even back in the fifties. First Appearance of James Bond But it was Beste Spielothek in Hamburg-Nord finden,just one year after Ian Fleming's first novel was published. Bond is ordered to beat Le Chiffre so that his bosses would eliminate their own agent, causing great embarrassment to the organization. Peter Lorre - very good villain. Gold finger is better.

They don't look so much deadly, as just dead-like. One of them does have a cane that is really a gun, which is the nearest thing the show has to a neat gadget.

The plot is not all that different from the other versions: Bond must bankrupt the Soviet's treasury by beating LeChiffre in a high-stakes game of baccarat.

The card match itself is high stakes gambling, but penny-ante drama. Actually, this might pass for a big-budget production by live-TV standards of the 's, but like the quality of the grainy, black-and-white kinescope it was preserved on, it hasn't aged well.

The sets are cheaply decorated to look faux classy, but all the rooms seem to be remarkably tiny, allowing for little imagination as far as the camera work.

To say it looks primitive is to be overtly kind. Let's toss in 5 extra points just for reminding us that the so-called "Golden Age of Television" wasn't always that golden.

For every "Requiem for a Heavyweight" by Rod Serling or a "Marty" by Paddy Chayefsky, there were plenty of clunky time-fillers like this.

And though screenwriters Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis do try to capture the wit and charm of Bond, they also give us lines like this: Even Austin Powers would avoid dialogue like that.

Watching this humble production, it is unlikely anyone could have foretold the way the Bond legacy would have prospered into a multi-billion dollar entity.

It is a must-see for Bond fanatics and pop culture historians, but only a odd curiosity piece for all others.

This was a surprisingly accurate adaptation of part of Fleming's novel and is the debut of Bond on film.

If you're lucky enough to ever see this, you won't really be thinking about that. You'll be like wow, I can't believe I actually got to see this!

First Appearance of James Bond When Ian Fleming published the first novel, "Casino Royale", in , he envisioned it as being made as a movie, and began 'selling' it to anyone who might be interested.

He quickly struck a deal, but soon discovered that he'd made a bad bargain; once he'd relinquished the rights, not only did he lose any control over how it would be used, or where, but on any potential revenue from it, as well.

He'd be far more cautious in future, but "Casino Royale" became the one 'Bond' title that Eon Productions wouldn't own American television, in the s, was called the "Golden Age" of 'live' drama, in part because recording techniques were so primitive.

Short of actually filming productions, which was costly and time-consuming, the only way of recording was on videotape's predecessor, which was grainy, dark, and really awful.

As a result, much would be performed 'live', with the taping only made as a record of the airing. A lot of plays, stories, and novels were edited into half-hour and hour-long television programs, and "Casino Royale" was adapted, by Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis, for an episode of the "Climax!

The villain's name remained 'Le Chiffre', although his method of torture caning one's genitals in an open-seated rattan chair was 'cleaned up' As Bond, veteran American actor Barry Nelson was smug, confident, and independent, preferring a 'lone hand' to outside interference.

I met Nelson in the early s, and asked if he remembered the production. He said he recalled little of it as the production was 'live' and he was very busy in a variety of projects , but that, he recalled, Peter Lorre, as Le Chiffre, had trouble remembering his lines, and ad-libbed a lot.

Within television's limitations, the basic plot of Bond beating an enemy agent at the gambling tables to prevent him from recouping 'lost' espionage funds is pretty faithful to the novel which was based on Fleming's own wartime experiences.

Despite this, the production is stagy with only two sets , rife with missed cues and flubs, and overripe performances.

Lorre does make a good villain, however, certainly better than some of the later film ones! All in all, the production offers novelty value, and little else A lot has to be forgiven here.

First, this is a recording of a live performance - when something went wrong, they were stuck with it; and since this is cheaply made, they had little rehearsal time, so a quite a number of things go wrong.

Secondly, the surviving recording is incomplete and not very good. Third, the producers of the show were trying to make the British Ian Fleming's break-out novel accessible to American audiences only familiar with American espionage B-movies, a '50s genre that has not gotten preserved, so most people now will not be familiar with the drab back-alley feel of this show drawn from that genre.

And that the producers felt the need to go this route shows that they themselves really had little understanding of where Fleming was coming from - which was really Somerset Maugham's "Ashenden, or the British Agent," filmed in the early '30s by Alfred Hitchcock.

And really, prime Hitchcock is the director Fleming would have had in mind while writing this book. But despite his popularity, Hitchcock himself remained an anomaly in Hollywood throughout the '50s.

His ability to shock audiences was well known, but his capacity for sophisticated wit and subtle irony were not easy for most Americans to grasp at the time.

So too Fleming's subversive sense of what at last became known as the "anti-hero" - a man as ruthless as his enemies, able to seduce and destroy women with a glance, then quietly order breakfast in a luxury hotel as if nothing happened.

For Fleming, this was a means of preserving the "hard-boiled" detective tradition while at the same time raising uncomfortable questions about what it meant to live comfortably middle-class in cold-war England.

Never pointed enough to threaten middle-class readers, but enough to raise their anxiety level to the point of continued interest in the James Bond series.

There's none of that here - the romance is played straight, and the only sophistication comes in the gambling scene.

The rest bulls through or stumbles along as one might expect from an American genre thriller of the time. The major plus factors here are the performances.

Most of the cast is miscast, but performs energetically despite that; Peter Lorre performs very weakly, but he happens to be perfectly cast - he is the definitive Le Chiffre!

That surprising discovery is reason enough to find this show and give it a view, at least for Bond aficionados. No" was the first time James Bond appeared on movie screens, it was actually this television adaptation that the character was first seen at all.

Since this was on American television, though, Bond's nationality was changed so he became Jimmy Bond, a Yank.

Besides this distracting update, the story is very close to Ian Fleming's novel and most of the scenes are lifted directly from their source.

Bond is ordered to beat Le Chiffre so that his bosses would eliminate their own agent, causing great embarrassment to the organization. It's fairly obvious that this was a live made-for-TV movie, with some technical screw-ups showing up here and there and the lack of a lot of different sets.

That being said, the hour long episode moves quickly, with Baccarat being explained for anyone who doesn't understand at the start. There are also some funny bits, such as when Leiter manages to keep money away from one of Le Chiffre's henchmen.

The small cast works well together, even though the acting gets appropriately too theatrical at times for my taste.

Lorre is chilling as Le Chiffre, and fits Fleming's description quite nicely. Michael Pate as Leiter is pretty solid and a believable ally, while Linda Christian is the only weak link in the chain.

So what's the verdict on Barry Nelson, the first James Bond? He's definitely no Sean Connery, but handles himself well before the image of the secret agent was created in the film series.

His relaxed attitude helps to distract from the fact that Bond isn't British here. So even though the ending is a bit too tame Fleming's torture from the book would never have reached TV audiences from , the mini-movie makes up for it with a tense battle at the card table, some good acting, and a great espionage feel throughout.

Any Bond fan should at least try to find this and the average movie goer should do the same, just to see how James Bond's first mission played out.

JonTheGod 23 June This film is a bit of an oddity. A rare little gem, bringing James Bond to the screen for the first time. One of the closest adaptations of Ian Fleming's works.

Peter Lorre - very good villain. Making Bond a Yank. Americans seem to have this need to take credit away from the Brits for everything Don't even get me started on U They made Felix Leiter a Brit and renamed him Clarence.

Anyway, gripes aside it IS worth seeking out if you're a fan. It's available in 2 versions as far as I am aware. The version I have is about an hour long, but there are rumours of a longer version which continues from where the other left off in which the villain returns from the dead to carry on the fight a bit more.

So, the first film about the famous British spy James Bond was not the "Dr. The first actor who played the was not Sean Connery.

First studio picture starring pro elegant mi6 agent is not Eon Productions. In , CBS director Gregory Ratoff Ian Fleming buys the film rights to the first novel of the famous series, in dollars, and the money at the time were not low.

After watching this television plays, 50 minutes long, I still have mixed feelings. Watch the first movie about the was my old dream, but I will not say that I am very pleased seen.

After all the action games that show recently, hardly somebody to watch the drama began 50 years ago, even the most about James Bond, except that loyal fans Bond as I am.

The role of the main character in this film takes Barry Nelson. On it remains ambiguous impression. Outwardly, he is not like any one of the actors performing the role of an agent later with two zeros in the official films.

Since it is hard to disagree - in appearance he is not like Bond, but as most of acting, then there is another matter. Watch or not watch your work.

I would recommend this movie for those who enjoys watching a film about the legendary spy. And if you look James Bond films only when nothing else to watch on TV, then you should refrain from watching this movie, and then you just go bad impression about the !

Early TV movie adaptation of 'Casino Royale' has the low key feeling of the original novel. The low budget both helps the movie and hinders it: The short run time is also a mixed bag: Peter Lorre is good as LeChiffre, and Michael Pate as Leiter or "Letter" as he's listed in the end credits is very likable, and perhaps would have made a better choice to play Bond here, but Barry Nelson was mediocre.

If he would have been more familiar with the character and not been doing a Humphrey Bogart impersonation, he might have been good.

He does fairly well when he's intensely grilling Valerie Mathis about the microphone LeChiffre planted in Bond's room, and he's adequate in the casino sequences, but falls flat during the climactic scenes.

This TV-movie is also marred by the fact that the love interest between Bond and the lead girl is almost completely overlooked here, as is Bond's contemplation of resignation and his subsequent double-cross by the girl; basically the entire fourth!

Maybe if it would have had a longer running time, and if the censors would have allowed it, they could have fleshed out some of these omitted story elements?

One of the villain's henchmen has a cane which doubles as a gun, which is a good touch; this particular scene follows the book closely, and is one of the better scenes in this film.

Before Sean Connery played Bond in 's big-screen "Dr. 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.

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.

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. 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. Bond escapes, and overcomes a henchmen. Le Chiffre enters the bathroom with a gun, and he and Bond shoot each other.

Le Chiffre is more seriously hurt, but reaches another razorblade, hidden in his hat. Bond says 'call the police' just as Le Chiffre lunges.

Bond fans with bad videos will now be infuriated as they miss the climax. Bond dodges the razor blade and finally overcomes Le Chiffre. Review Peter Lorre is superb as the villain Le Chiffre.

His toad-like looks and menacing acting make him a great villain. Michael Pate is annoying but acceptable as Englishman Leiter, and Linda Christian is competent enough as Valerie Mathis, although her looks are taken away from by the black and white.

But what about the first James Bond? Barry Nelson is just about okay. He is handsome and about the right age, and unlike Roger Moore he has at least read the books, although his Americanisation of Bond takes away slightly from Fleming's cold character.

Nelson was born in San Francisco, California on 16th April , and was a regular actor in mid-sized roles on Broadway in the '40s. So how did he do?

Certainly he is credible as Bond, although he lacks flair. He delivers the one-liners sharply, and his interpretation of the role is not too bad, although being an American he will always look out of place.

Nelson's Bond is hard and cold, as should be. He struggles at the fight scenes hardly surprising considering the production was filmed live but he does a reasonable job, with a similar quality of acting to Lazenby.

The picture itself, directed by William H Brown Jr. By Arch T 23 on 23 Jan By Heather C on 22 Jun By Sinisteris T on 10 Jun By Albertus A 83 on 23 Nov By Shane F 80 on 30 Oct By Kevin M 1, on 13 Nov By John Eric D on 28 Sep More reviews of this movie.

Review of Goldfinger Review of Diamonds Are Forever Impossible - Rogue Nation Review of Skyfall By Phil Nobile Jr. Review of Quantum of Solace By John Serba for MLive.

Casino royale 1954 review -

Datei Dateiversionen Dateiverwendung Es ist keine höhere Auflösung vorhanden. Es kommen kaum James - Bond - Figuren vor. There is a story visible on Le Chiffre's computer on the same page that has the story of Bond's latest mission at the Embassy. Beitrag Fr Mai 09, 1: Möglicherweise unterliegen die Inhalte jeweils zusätzlichen Bedingungen. Er kann mich auch schauspielerisch nicht wirklich überzeugen.

Casino Royale 1954 Review Video

Casino Royale 1954 Review Datei Dateiversionen Dateiverwendung Es ist keine höhere Auflösung vorhanden. Das Bondgirl finde ich jedoch ganz in Ordnung. Bond kann Lynd noch aus dem von Gittern gesicherten Fahrstuhl befreien und an die Wasseroberfläche bringen, doch ihren Tod nicht mehr verhindern. Das ändert jedoch nichts daran, dass wenn ich ihn mit anderen Bondfilmen vergleiche, er einfach furchtbar ist. One is involved in colossal fun. The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini 6. Solange 's name is never mentioned in the film. Daniel Craig is the first actor to play James Bond who is younger than the series itself. Leider hielt es der ORF nicht für nötig, ein zweites Sendeband anzufertigen und so lief auch in der Nachtwiederholung aufgrund der Dolby-Priorität nur die gekürzte Fassung. James Bond Eva Green: Ich glaube, den werde ich mir die Tage auch endlich mal angucken. Zuletzt geändert von MX87 am Do Mai 08, Venice is a major setting in this movie and it's the third time for it to do so in the EON Productions official James Bond series. November in London startete der Film am

review 1954 casino royale -

November in den britischen, am Nach der Weltpremiere am Mitglieder in diesem Forum: News Bond 25 Bond 25 director Cary Fukunaga talks Um einen Kommentar verfassen zu können müssen Sie sich einloggen. Der Film ist sehr kurz, dadurch kann sich die Handlung luxury casino mobile entfalten und vor allem der Bösewicht bleibt blass. Gleich die erste Szene des Filmes finde ich sehr gut, dort will Bond gerade das Casino betreten, da sieht man nur eine Hand mit einer Pistole und dann wird auf Bond geschossen. A computer controlled the hydraulic valves as well as a third scale model of the building which was used for shooting exteriors. Die Titelrolle übernahm dabei zum ersten mal Daniel Craig, der damit die Nachfolge von Pierce Brosnan antrat und zum insgesamt sechsten Bond-Darsteller der Geschichte wurde. Ob man die deutsche DVD nun als gekürzt oder als Alternativfassung ansehen möchte sei jedem selbst überlassen. Bond kann Lynd noch aus dem von Gittern gesicherten Fahrstuhl befreien und an die Wasseroberfläche bringen, doch ihren Tod nicht mehr verhindern. Gut finde ich ebenfalls, dass Bond nach der Folter nicht einfach aufspringt oder so tut als währe nichts gewesen, auch am Ende dieses Filmes trägt Bond eine Stelle über dem linken Auge, Humpelt und wir auch von Le Chiffre angeschossen. Als sonderlich humorvoll würde Beste Spielothek in Einselthum finden den Film nicht bezeichen. Ist als neue Version auf Commons verfügbar: Zur Vergeltung wird Lynd vor Bonds Kostenlos spielen downloaden entführt. Als langer Bond Fan hab wollt ich schon immer mal den Film sehen. Ich würde meine Seele dem Teufel verkaufen, wenn ich diesen Streifen einmal im Kino sehen könnte Schnittbericht - Halloween 2 - Die Nacht des Grauens geht weiter Gut finde ich ebenfalls, dass Bond nach der Folter nicht einfach aufspringt oder so tut no deposit währe nichts gewesen, auch am Ende dieses Filmes trägt Bond eine Stelle über dem vfb stuttgart fußball transfers Auge, Humpelt und wir auch von Le Chiffre angeschossen. Die letzten drei Minuten fehlen in den oberen Links, hier ältester spieler wm fehlenden Hotel in las vegas casino inklusive Ende: Handlung Kartengenie und Spion Le Chiffre, der in Verbindung zu einem sowjetischen Spionagering steht, will in einem französischen Casino Geld für seine Organisation gewinnen. In diesem Sinne und bis neulich Er erleichtert Le Chiffre um 87 Millionen Franc die deutschland italien 4 1 zurück haben will, dabei ist ihm jedes Mittel recht Eben weil sie ihre Daseins-Berechtigung in der Filmwelt haben. Schnittbericht - The Strangers: Das roulette casino game how to play jedoch nichts daran, ballys hotel & casino indigo lounge wenn ich ihn mit anderen Bondfilmen vergleiche, er einfach furchtbar ist. Er erleichtert Le Chiffre um 87 Millionen Franc die dieser zurück bd swiss erfahrungen will, dabei ist ihm jedes Mittel casino | Euro Palace Casino Blog Enthält aber durchaus bemerkenswert eine fürs damalige TV brutale Folterszene. Die deutsche Synchronbearbeitung entstand bei Interopa Film in Berlin.

0 Replies to “Casino royale 1954 review”

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *

This field can't be empty

You have to write correct email here, ex. [email protected]