(1967)

Critic Reviews

48

Metascore

Based on 11 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com
80
Despite being not officially a Bond film this is good solid, entertaining action.
58
Casino Royale offers plenty for the eyes and ears, but little for the funnybone.
50
At one time or another, Casino Royale undoubtedly had a shooting schedule, a script and a plot. If any one of the three ever turns up, it might be the making of a good movie.
50
If it were stopped at the end of an hour and 40 minutes instead of at the end of 2 hours and 10 minutes, it might be a terminally satisfying entertainment instead of the wearying one it is.
50
The New Yorker
An all-star send-up of the Bond films, with multiple Bonds and multiple directors, has some laughs, but it makes one terribly conscious of wastefulness. Jokes and plots and possibilities are thrown away along with huge, extravagant sets, and famous performers go spinning by.
50
Unfortunately, after the introductory sequences, Casino Royale begins a downhill slide. It gets progressively sillier and more incoherent until it's impossible to keep any of the plot elements straight.
50
With so many egos—including five directors—competing for attention, the picture soon degenerates into an incoherent and vulgar vaudeville.
50
A mess. Casino Royale is two hours and eleven minutes of non sequitur.
40
Village Voice
Things pick up a little bit when Orson Welles, Peter Sellers, and Woody Allen stumble into the scene, but the total experience remains boringly incoherent.
30
A film of astounding sloppiness, an insult to the Bond name (most likely deliberate) and a dark spot on the resumes of all involved (surely unintentional).

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for Casino Royale (1967) »

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Reviews | User Ratings | External Reviews


Recently Viewed