I watched this film once. It was such an incoherent and bizarre mess that I didn't want to criticise it. The film has a ridiculously great cast and a lot of money and people involved. It had the potential to be a great parody, but completely fell apart. A few jokes got a laugh out of me and most of the actors did a passable job with the nonsense the had to work with.
Yes, a ridiculous mess of a movie. Sometimes difficult, always incoherent, and should be grouped with what they used to call "wacky" comedies of the time (thanks for bringing up the connection to "What's New Pussycat"). BUT, same as you, I can watch parts of the film, for the art design, the 1960's psychedelic fashions, and (of course) that magnificent score, over and over again! And I have to mention MY favorite line: When David Niven is visiting Ursula Andress in Vesper Lynd's office, and mentions the bizarre over-the-top headdress Vesper is wearing, she responds, "Well, if I wore it in the street, people might stare..." haha
You know, today was the first time in forever I finally rewatched a James Bond film. It was Casino Royale, of course. And the first thing I did before revisiting it was watching the "The Road to Casino Royale" documentary which illuminates on the rather painful history of attempted adaptations of the first Bond novel, and sure enough... It turns out Feldman Royale was a _very_ doomed effort, between initial, more serious scripts deciding to omit James Bond himself in favour of a mafia-type guy named Lucky, multiple directors working on the project, and of course, a hilariously botched promotion where people with trenchcoats could get a free screening, only for rambunctious teenagers to go on a rampage. It's honestly, one of the wildest production stories ever, right up there with the Kevin McClory fiasco (which I'm very familiar with, of course). I'm just thankful that when the third Casino Royale adaptation was made, production went far smoother, it turned out to be one of the best Bond adventures ever and MGM, Columbia and EON didn't attempt a "Spy Screening" promotion again. Honestly, I'm tempted to complete my James Bond collection with both No Time to Die [aka. The One Where Bond Dies] and moreso Feldman Royale just because it was a complete disaster.
I'm in my 60's and saw this at the drive in with my parents. As a kid I loved the film as I just went with it as fun. As an adult I still have a fond spot for it. Sure it is not official Eon. Still "Never say never again" is not Eon either and only gets noticed because Connery is in it. I still think it is a worthwhile watch if you don't take it seriously. Seems many reviewers don't have the courage to just enjoy it as fun. Don't forget Mike Myers has stated this was a major inspiration for the Austin Powers series. If you love those films check this out. By the way this review trys to be fair minded even though it fails at that. Guess you had to be alive in the 60's to appeciate how much fun this is.
@pleasantvalleypickerca7681 I'm glad to see a defender of this film (there are far too few), but I'm not sure if I was old enough to experience the 60s that it'd solve some of my problems. Contemporary reviews of the film weren't kind, I've seen other 60s comedies like What’s New Pussycat and like those fine, and, if I needed to be alive in a particular decade to enjoy the film, doesn't that imply the film's appeal is limited? If a movie cannot transcend the times it was made and appeal to younger audiences, then it is doomed to be disregarded and forgotten. I feel like I'm nicer to this film than most fans, and there are some genuinely good things in here. In fact, I still put this above some of the more serious Bond films because I can enjoy some of the ride. But I still think it's a mess and too problematic to the nth degree for me to completely get on board. But hey, that's just my view, and I'm grateful not everyone sees these films as I do.
I love the movie o saw this when i was young as a kid, scince i love Sellers and Niven i gave it a chance ot was a bizziare crazy film ever made plus as a kid i was watching connery Bond movies but Casino royale was funny creative and i loved the idea of confusing the enemy hirering other spies as james bond, this was a like a crazy satire spoof amd to think that sevral director s gave alot of time for this movie, thats amazing another thing i like about this movie is that it was full of surprises its like i was watching diffrent situation also bizziar and wierd also the music really stand out for every part ot was brilliant yess its a movie that doesnt make scence something that most people would dream and wake up the next day and your dreams didntake scenec but i still watch it atleast every year, i have on dvd and if i can find another copy i will buy it again its movie to see with family for a laughter trust me thier going to be people that will watch this crazy movie just like Austin Powers 😂
That may happen sometime down the road. I'm currently working on a big non-Bond video, and then I'll keep cranking out some of the next few films in the lineup.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's an objectively bad film. It's like a car crash....that you just can't stop watching (at least for me). I'll admit that since I grew up watching it on rerun in the 70's, a lot of my fondness for it is nostalgia but strewn around the wreckage, there is a decent film in here somewhere. Just good luck in finding it.
Dude you totally miss the point it's not about moving the storey along or even being coherent. This was the crazy, swinging 60's. Culture was often so "far out" folks just had fun and went with it even if it made little sense.
@@TheToonMonkey You’re quite right. I adored Skyfall at the time, but it’s got some of the most gaping plot holes of any movie I’ve ever seen. And the less said about the other three movies the better!
You almost have to see "What's New Pussycat" to understand where the wacky, screwball comedy tone is coming from. This is like an extended episode of The Avengers mixed with Get Smart. The long, boring Scotland segment should have been cut as it goes nowhere, and having 6 directors made for a disjointed mishmash. The movie is a glitzy, expensive trainwreck with some nice bits.
Shame sounds like this movie could have been good and specially with all these actors. I mean both David Niven and Peter Sellers, The pink Panther is perhaps my favourite 60s adventure comedy as example. David Niven could have been perfect Bond when he was younger.
The magic tricks & film aren't meant to make any sense. I didn't hear "60s kitsch." It's replete with it. Say mo more. You didn't mention that the script never got finished throughout the film's production. Candy, with Brando, Burton, Matthau, Ringo; The Adventures of Gérard; The Happening; Not Now Darling; Matt Helm mularchy, and so many 60s comedies all demonstrate the advantage of having plots all over the shop.
It's such a pain that YT keeps pulling these down. Thanks for reuploading, your review stops me from having to re-watch the film myself, hahaha.
In this particular film's case, that may be a mercy.
In this case, the story of how this movie came to be the incoherent mess that it is is literally more interesting than the film itself.
I watched this film once. It was such an incoherent and bizarre mess that I didn't want to criticise it. The film has a ridiculously great cast and a lot of money and people involved. It had the potential to be a great parody, but completely fell apart. A few jokes got a laugh out of me and most of the actors did a passable job with the nonsense the had to work with.
Great theme tune... That's about it really...
Yes, a ridiculous mess of a movie. Sometimes difficult, always incoherent, and should be grouped with what they used to call "wacky" comedies of the time (thanks for bringing up the connection to "What's New Pussycat"). BUT, same as you, I can watch parts of the film, for the art design, the 1960's psychedelic fashions, and (of course) that magnificent score, over and over again! And I have to mention MY favorite line: When David Niven is visiting Ursula Andress in Vesper Lynd's office, and mentions the bizarre over-the-top headdress Vesper is wearing, she responds, "Well, if I wore it in the street, people might stare..." haha
You know, today was the first time in forever I finally rewatched a James Bond film. It was Casino Royale, of course. And the first thing I did before revisiting it was watching the "The Road to Casino Royale" documentary which illuminates on the rather painful history of attempted adaptations of the first Bond novel, and sure enough... It turns out Feldman Royale was a _very_ doomed effort, between initial, more serious scripts deciding to omit James Bond himself in favour of a mafia-type guy named Lucky, multiple directors working on the project, and of course, a hilariously botched promotion where people with trenchcoats could get a free screening, only for rambunctious teenagers to go on a rampage.
It's honestly, one of the wildest production stories ever, right up there with the Kevin McClory fiasco (which I'm very familiar with, of course). I'm just thankful that when the third Casino Royale adaptation was made, production went far smoother, it turned out to be one of the best Bond adventures ever and MGM, Columbia and EON didn't attempt a "Spy Screening" promotion again. Honestly, I'm tempted to complete my James Bond collection with both No Time to Die [aka. The One Where Bond Dies] and moreso Feldman Royale just because it was a complete disaster.
I'm in my 60's and saw this at the drive in with my parents. As a kid I loved the film as I just went with it as fun. As an adult I still have a fond spot for it. Sure it is not official Eon. Still "Never say never again" is not Eon either and only gets noticed because Connery is in it. I still think it is a worthwhile watch if you don't take it seriously. Seems many reviewers don't have the courage to just enjoy it as fun. Don't forget Mike Myers has stated this was a major inspiration for the Austin Powers series. If you love those films check this out. By the way this review trys to be fair minded even though it fails at that. Guess you had to be alive in the 60's to appeciate how much fun this is.
@pleasantvalleypickerca7681 I'm glad to see a defender of this film (there are far too few), but I'm not sure if I was old enough to experience the 60s that it'd solve some of my problems. Contemporary reviews of the film weren't kind, I've seen other 60s comedies like What’s New Pussycat and like those fine, and, if I needed to be alive in a particular decade to enjoy the film, doesn't that imply the film's appeal is limited? If a movie cannot transcend the times it was made and appeal to younger audiences, then it is doomed to be disregarded and forgotten. I feel like I'm nicer to this film than most fans, and there are some genuinely good things in here. In fact, I still put this above some of the more serious Bond films because I can enjoy some of the ride. But I still think it's a mess and too problematic to the nth degree for me to completely get on board. But hey, that's just my view, and I'm grateful not everyone sees these films as I do.
I love the movie o saw this when i was young as a kid, scince i love Sellers and Niven i gave it a chance ot was a bizziare crazy film ever made plus as a kid i was watching connery Bond movies but Casino royale was funny creative and i loved the idea of confusing the enemy hirering other spies as james bond, this was a like a crazy satire spoof amd to think that sevral director s gave alot of time for this movie, thats amazing another thing i like about this movie is that it was full of surprises its like i was watching diffrent situation also bizziar and wierd also the music really stand out for every part ot was brilliant yess its a movie that doesnt make scence something that most people would dream and wake up the next day and your dreams didntake scenec but i still watch it atleast every year, i have on dvd and if i can find another copy i will buy it again its movie to see with family for a laughter trust me thier going to be people that will watch this crazy movie just like Austin Powers 😂
I would like for this series to look at the Austin Powers series and potentially other movies that spoof elements of the Bond films
That may happen sometime down the road. I'm currently working on a big non-Bond video, and then I'll keep cranking out some of the next few films in the lineup.
@@stephenjarvis534 Can't wait for whatever that video is.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's an objectively bad film. It's like a car crash....that you just can't stop watching (at least for me). I'll admit that since I grew up watching it on rerun in the 70's, a lot of my fondness for it is nostalgia but strewn around the wreckage, there is a decent film in here somewhere. Just good luck in finding it.
Dude you totally miss the point it's not about moving the storey along or even being coherent. This was the crazy, swinging 60's. Culture was often so "far out" folks just had fun and went with it even if it made little sense.
I’d still rather rewatch this than some of the Daniel Craig films
Ironically, the one of his that is rewatchable is 'Casino Royale'. It was his peak.
@@TheToonMonkey You’re quite right. I adored Skyfall at the time, but it’s got some of the most gaping plot holes of any movie I’ve ever seen. And the less said about the other three movies the better!
@@rhysalexander182 I liked Skyfall, but never fell fully for the hype around it.
@16:20 Um, I think you meant to write "renaming" instead of "remaining" in question 8.
Yep, my bad.
Imagine how good this film could have been if they took all the money and movie talent in this movie and tried to make a series Bond film.
You almost have to see "What's New Pussycat" to understand where the wacky, screwball comedy tone is coming from. This is like an extended episode of The Avengers mixed with Get Smart. The long, boring Scotland segment should have been cut as it goes nowhere, and having 6 directors made for a disjointed mishmash. The movie is a glitzy, expensive trainwreck with some nice bits.
Five directors, a star studded cast, and a 60s music score. And what do you get?
If you look up annoying in the dictionary there may be a picture of this movie next to it.
Shame sounds like this movie could have been good and specially with all these actors. I mean both David Niven and Peter Sellers, The pink Panther is perhaps my favourite 60s adventure comedy as example. David Niven could have been perfect Bond when he was younger.
The magic tricks & film aren't meant to make any sense.
I didn't hear "60s kitsch." It's replete with it. Say mo more.
You didn't mention that the script never got finished throughout the film's production.
Candy, with Brando, Burton, Matthau, Ringo; The Adventures of Gérard; The Happening; Not Now Darling; Matt Helm mularchy, and so many 60s comedies all demonstrate the advantage of having plots all over the shop.
Wasn’t too bad at all
I got about halfway through this film and gave up. I was bored out of my mind.
Fair enough. I'm often bored while watching it, and I usually only make it through it when I have the willpower.
The film gets worse the further you watch, so you didn't miss anything.
Still prefer this movie than any Tim Dalton Bond movie, Moonraker was much worse as well.