MovieChat Forums > Casino Royale (1967) Discussion > More fun for the actors than the audienc...

More fun for the actors than the audience


I'm 50 minutes into this DVD and it's just one cameo after another. It's a spoof, I get it, but the writing is so inane. The only thing it has going for it is the eye candy. All the young babes then you have Kerr as a definite MILF! It's best just to watch and don't think. The actors must have had a ball doing this movie because they just hammed everything up. What a waste of a very big and talented cast.

reply

Well, it was never meant to be a serious flick. I hated the thing, but now have a fondness for it out of nostalgia. But, even though I'm a little more fond of it, I still hate it for what it is

reply

Well, it was never meant to be a serious flick. >>> Not being serious shouldn't mean not being cohesive or not making any sense. Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein is hilarious, yet also a loving homage to Frankenstein and a fantastically written spoof. This movie isn't really enjoyable at all, but rather an oddball curiosity and a perfect example of how NOT to make a film.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

Amazingly it made $money; arguably just on the James Bond name.

reply

Very boring movie. I'm sure they had more laughs on set than the audience watching it. All jokes fell flat. Bad script. Bad revisions. Bad editing. The acting fell short as well, even though this film was full of acting talent.

-----
Google asks users to be more specific in searching for porn, to which users say NO PROBLEM!

reply