Casino Royale
- Episode aired Oct 21, 1954
- Unrated
- 52m
IMDb RATING
5.6/10
1.5K
YOUR RATING
American spy James Bond must outsmart card wiz and crime boss Le Chiffre while monitoring his actions.American spy James Bond must outsmart card wiz and crime boss Le Chiffre while monitoring his actions.American spy James Bond must outsmart card wiz and crime boss Le Chiffre while monitoring his actions.
Jean Del Val
- Croupier
- (as Jean DeVal)
Herman Belmonte
- Doorman
- (uncredited)
Joe Gilbert
- Casino Patron
- (uncredited)
Frank McLure
- Casino Patron
- (uncredited)
Hans Moebus
- Casino Patron
- (uncredited)
Paul Power
- Casino Patron
- (uncredited)
Paul Ravel
- Casino Patron
- (uncredited)
Cosmo Sardo
- Attendant
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe first ever witty Bond one-liner in a James Bond movie occurs at the beginning of this television movie when Bond's ally Clarence Leiter asks, "Aren't you the fellow who was shot?" and Bond replies, "No, I'm the fellow who was missed."
- GoofsCamera shadow is visible several times in the final scene.
- Quotes
Clarence Leiter: Aren't you the fellow who was shot?
James Bond: No, I'm the fellow who was missed.
- Alternate versionsOriginally broadcast as an episode of "Climax!" (1954). Most prints retain the original Climax opening credits. The DVD release (as a bonus on the DVD for Casino Royale (1967) has added the MGM lion logo to reflect the fact the production is now owned by MGM.
- ConnectionsEdited into The James Bond Collector's Classic (1990)
- SoundtracksPrelude for Piano, Op. 28, No. 24 in D Minor (The Storm)
by Frédéric Chopin
Featured review
First Appearance of James Bond...on American TELEVISION!
When Ian Fleming published the first 007 novel, "Casino Royale", in 1952, 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...giving it a convoluted history that is worth a book on it's own!
American television, in the 1950s, 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!" TV series. Changing sophisticated British spy James Bond into American CIA operative "Card-Sense Jimmy Bond", the characters were toned (and in some cases DUMBED) down for American audiences (I think the writers thought the Yank idea of 'sophistication' was beer in a glass). Vesper Lynd became Valerie Mathis, CIA agent Felix Leiter became British agent Clarence(?) Leiter, etc. 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 1990s, 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...
American television, in the 1950s, 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!" TV series. Changing sophisticated British spy James Bond into American CIA operative "Card-Sense Jimmy Bond", the characters were toned (and in some cases DUMBED) down for American audiences (I think the writers thought the Yank idea of 'sophistication' was beer in a glass). Vesper Lynd became Valerie Mathis, CIA agent Felix Leiter became British agent Clarence(?) Leiter, etc. 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 1990s, 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...
helpful•174
- cariart
- Apr 19, 2006
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content