Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
The Bond spoof that was disowned in its own time, but has gained a surreal Monty Python-esque charm of its own since.
Don't get me wrong, - as a production The original Casino Royale (I'll call it TO-CR ongoing) is a travesty, you can tell its broken pieces were thrown together with superglue and a lot of praying, like a cheap pot that has replaced prized vase that you are pretending did not get broken, in spite of the cracks and missing pieces. Its no surprise it did not work and bombed badly when it was made. (Not only was up against YOLT, but also its own pre-release bad mouth reputation and damaged PR). However it does have its moments of charm.
Ursula Andress making do, accompanied by Burt B's classic "look of Love" song, the ravishing Daliah Lavi as "The Detainer", sultry sexy and dangerous! David Niven is fantastic as as Sir James Bond with the inspired idea of his disgusted annoyance at the reputation spies have gained in his absence! The character's voice is grating, but you have to love the genuinely hilarious performance by Joanna Pettet as Mata Bond, Sir James eccentric daughter.
Add in the ludicrous elements of the Acme style gadgets - I fell about while roaring with laughter at the Grenade Grouse - I'm a country boy Scot, that appealed to my sense of humour, along with the The kamikaze milk float, and "scalextric route planner" . Irronically a mainstay of the other films (missing in CR 2006) is added in a funny but respectful way here - Q branch. Wouldn't it be great if it was of a scale that it did have a devision underneath Harrods?
Other elements of course do NOT work - much like the film as a whole. - The Scottish brains and brawn fight in the castle is cringeworthy, Peter Sellars awkward and uptight performance throughout as Tremble is awful. - A far cry from the zeal in his performances as one of The Goons, or later in The Pink Panther Franchise. Set design from start to finish is a treavesty, with minimal exceptions, such as Q branch or Bond's office. Everything else is an over the top extreme hell, where people with opposite design ideas bang into one another as one set locale clashes with the style of the next. - Even the Austin Powers movies, which revel in 60's and 70's kitch got their internal balance right.
Finally the plot. Its lost it, completely. The dangerous psychedelic business and the sheer out of control hysteria of the ending show a production that did not have a hell of an idea of what it was doing, or how to sort itself out. If you can look at this through the eyes of Monty Python's - Meaning of life, you'll come out the other end fine. Try seeing it on the same level as Austin P / the other Bond films, you will be devastated and needing a nerve tonic, or anger management classes!
As one critic observed, "Bond plots are supposed to be a little deranged; this however, ought to be fitted into a straightjacket and locked up tight for the good of society."
I do like this film for its sheer lunacy and outrageousness. It has a self mocking indignance thanks to David Niven and to a lesser degree, Orson Welles, and it does have brief moments of sheer Bond. However, it IS best to look at it as a prehistoric prototype of the Austin Powers / later Carry On films, which failed to get the pieces it had to fit.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
It's a mess, but when the perky Joanna Pettet or the jaw breaking Barbara Bouchet are onscreen it's a delight. Also the final cigarette offered to Woody Allen. He's facing a firing squad and starts worrying about the dangers of smoking. lol
It's the biggest example of less is more. Great for a huge dose of 60's pop culture and everyone crammed in it.
Once you see it you don't forget it.
And you can never get enough of Sellers or Niv.
Terrible in every respect!!! There is nothing worse in cinema than a comedy that is completely devoid of laughs. This film is Exhibit A for that assertion.
Denzil2222
Posts: 77MI6 Agent
Comments
Don't get me wrong, - as a production The original Casino Royale (I'll call it TO-CR ongoing) is a travesty, you can tell its broken pieces were thrown together with superglue and a lot of praying, like a cheap pot that has replaced prized vase that you are pretending did not get broken, in spite of the cracks and missing pieces. Its no surprise it did not work and bombed badly when it was made. (Not only was up against YOLT, but also its own pre-release bad mouth reputation and damaged PR). However it does have its moments of charm.
Ursula Andress making do, accompanied by Burt B's classic "look of Love" song, the ravishing Daliah Lavi as "The Detainer", sultry sexy and dangerous! David Niven is fantastic as as Sir James Bond with the inspired idea of his disgusted annoyance at the reputation spies have gained in his absence! The character's voice is grating, but you have to love the genuinely hilarious performance by Joanna Pettet as Mata Bond, Sir James eccentric daughter.
Add in the ludicrous elements of the Acme style gadgets - I fell about while roaring with laughter at the Grenade Grouse - I'm a country boy Scot, that appealed to my sense of humour, along with the The kamikaze milk float, and "scalextric route planner" . Irronically a mainstay of the other films (missing in CR 2006) is added in a funny but respectful way here - Q branch. Wouldn't it be great if it was of a scale that it did have a devision underneath Harrods?
Other elements of course do NOT work - much like the film as a whole. - The Scottish brains and brawn fight in the castle is cringeworthy, Peter Sellars awkward and uptight performance throughout as Tremble is awful. - A far cry from the zeal in his performances as one of The Goons, or later in The Pink Panther Franchise. Set design from start to finish is a treavesty, with minimal exceptions, such as Q branch or Bond's office. Everything else is an over the top extreme hell, where people with opposite design ideas bang into one another as one set locale clashes with the style of the next. - Even the Austin Powers movies, which revel in 60's and 70's kitch got their internal balance right.
Finally the plot. Its lost it, completely. The dangerous psychedelic business and the sheer out of control hysteria of the ending show a production that did not have a hell of an idea of what it was doing, or how to sort itself out. If you can look at this through the eyes of Monty Python's - Meaning of life, you'll come out the other end fine. Try seeing it on the same level as Austin P / the other Bond films, you will be devastated and needing a nerve tonic, or anger management classes!
As one critic observed, "Bond plots are supposed to be a little deranged; this however, ought to be fitted into a straightjacket and locked up tight for the good of society."
I do like this film for its sheer lunacy and outrageousness. It has a self mocking indignance thanks to David Niven and to a lesser degree, Orson Welles, and it does have brief moments of sheer Bond. However, it IS best to look at it as a prehistoric prototype of the Austin Powers / later Carry On films, which failed to get the pieces it had to fit.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Once you see it you don't forget it.
And you can never get enough of Sellers or Niv.