User Reviews

The first ever screen representation of James Bond is, understandably, miles removed from the way we have come to know and love Britain's top secret agent; for starters, this 50-minute adaptation of Ian Fleming's first Bond novel is not only shot in black-and-white but was recorded live for an American TV program entitled "Climax!".

In fact, even Bond himself - occasionally referred to as Jimmy! - is an American here (played by the rather uncharismatic Barry Nelson) and the wildly international cast also consists of Austrian Peter Lorre as the villain of the piece Le Chiffre, Mexican Linda Christian as the female interest, Australian Michael Pate as C.I.A. operative Clarence(!) Leiter and Polish Kurt Katch as one of Le Chiffre's henchmen. The program concerns itself only with the all-important game of baccarat taking place in the Casino of the title and as such is much less exciting than any subsequent Bond outing but, for all that, Lorre's professionalism and the sheer naivete and, indeed, rarity of the whole thing gives it a certain charm which keeps one watching.

Let's enter a dim, bygone alternate universe where James Bond was an American agent, strolling through a low-budget TV production adaptation of the Ian Fleming novel. In footage nearly lost, reflected in the muddy black-and-white presentation, we witness an historic first - the first TV or film incarnation of James Bond. Completing the reversal on Fleming's original concept, Bond's buddy Leiter is a British agent (always an American CIA agent in the future films). Yep, we've definitely entered a Twilight Zone-type warped version of the Bond mythology. It's typical, however, of the limitations of the live television format from the fifties: two or three different small sets (rooms) are used for the entire show; the action is slow, driven mainly by dialog, and it has the feel of a stage play, in three acts. What brief fight scenes there are, towards the end, are somewhat crude and awkward, not surprising since it is a live broadcast. The script follows Fleming's premise: Bond's mission is basically to outplay the main villain at cards (baccarat, in this case) and take his money; this remained the major plot point of the new film version in 2006.

Filmmakers always seem to despair when given the task of making a card game exciting on film, but the potential is there - "The Cincinnati Kid"(65) is a good example and the 2006 version of "Casino Royale" also did a good job. Here, though a static game of cards seemed suitable for a TV episode, the solution was to make the scenes as short as possible. Bond (Nelson) gains the upper hand over Le Chiffre (Lorre) after only a couple of hands in the 2nd act and it's all over. The more intense scenes, in this version's favor, come about in the 3rd and final act, when Le Chiffre employs a tool of torture (below the bottom of the picture, off-screen) on a couple of Bond's toes; I guess he breaks them - actor Nelson gasps in pain convincingly. This retained the essential streak of sadism in Fleming's Bond stories (and the subsequent films), a surprising inclusion considering the bland TV standards of the fifties. Nelson was bland, as well, but adequate. Lorre was Lorre, one of those character actors known for stealing scenes, with an unforgettable voice. He was well cast as the first Bond villain, albeit a TV show version. This was, to its credit, a serious, no-nonsense approach, if quite a bit on the stiff side.

Bond:6 Villain:7 Femme Fatale:6 Henchmen:5 Leiter:6 Fights:4 Gadgets:n/a Pace:5 overall:6-. This was the Bond title that the producers of the regular series of Bond films begun in 1962 were unable to use until the end of the century. The next film version of "Casino Royale" was in 1967, a completely different approach as a satirical silly romp. But James Bond would return on the big screen in "Dr.No"(1962).

Not only is this a fairly faithful adaption of Ian Fleming's original Bond story, but it's an excellent example of early, live television - dropped lines, missed cue's, miss-timed squibs and sound effects... the whole 9 yards.

Peter Lorrie is amazing as LeChiffre.

You can find this gem on the 2002 DVD release of "Casino Royale ('67)"

Early TV movie adaptation of 'Casino Royale' has the low key feeling of the original novel. The low budget both helps the movie and hinders it: it gives it the grittier look that some of the Bond novels have, and also makes it look slightly like a film noir, but also limits it in term of sets and props and lighting (which is often times visible over the actors' heads.) The short run time is also a mixed bag: the film doesn't overstay its welcome, and follows the book fairly closely, (the original novel was so short that it seems almost like a pamphlet, rather than a full length novel) but it doesn't give much opportunity to flesh out the characters at all.

Peter Lorre is good as LeChiffre, and Michael Pate as Leiter (or "Letter" as he's listed in the end credits) is very likable, and perhaps would have made a better choice to play Bond here, but Barry Nelson was mediocre. If he would have been more familiar with the character and not been doing a Humphrey Bogart impersonation, he might have been good. He does fairly well when he's intensely grilling Valerie Mathis about the microphone LeChiffre planted in Bond's room, and he's adequate in the casino sequences, but falls flat during the climactic scenes.

This TV-movie is also marred by the fact that the love interest between Bond and the lead girl is almost completely overlooked here, as is Bond's contemplation of resignation and his subsequent double-cross by the girl; basically the entire fourth(!) act of the novel was omitted here. Maybe if it would have had a longer running time, and if the censors would have allowed it, they could have fleshed out some of these omitted story elements?

One of the villain's henchmen has a cane which doubles as a gun, which is a good touch; this particular scene follows the book closely, and is one of the better scenes in this film.

"The name's Bond. Jimmy Bond."

Or so this American James Bond might as well say in 007's screen debut.

Before Sean Connery played Bond in 1962's big-screen "Dr. No," Barry Nelson (Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining") played the secret agent in this 1954 CBS small-screen live adaptation of Ian Fleming's first Bond novel.

Jimmy Bond is an American CIA (Combined Intelligence Agency) officer. He is tasked with cleaning out communist agent Le Chiffre (Peter Lorre, "Casablanca") in a game of baccarat. Le Chiffre has been living like a high-roller on party funds, and if he can't recover the funds quickly, he's likely to be executed by his own party. He plans to stake everything on one card game at Casino Royale in France. Bond's mission is to make sure Le Chiffre is ruined. Bond is helped by British secret agent Clarence Leiter (perhaps a cousin of Felix Leiter) and sexy French double agent Valerie Mathis (Vesper Lynd and René Mathis from Fleming's novel rolled into one character).

This early Bond film is markedly different from the later MGM series, and criticisms of it arise mainly from comparisons with the wildly popular franchise. To many, Sean Connery was the only Bond, and later actors were only replacements. Nelson still doesn't benefit by coming before Connery. Since "Casino Royale" was made for American TV as a part of the CBS series Climax!, the producers seemed to think they needed to make the hero American. Nelson plays Bond like a hard-boiled private eye. He talks with a stiff upper lip and drinks water instead of vodka martinis shaken-not-stirred. Peter Lorre, however, is spot-on as the villain. Even though he is a small man, he radiates an erratic intensity that makes him menacing.

Since this version of "Casino Royale" was made for live TV, there are also mistakes as a result of not having multiple takes to get it right. There are long pauses in telephone conversations, Lorre is inaudible at times, and in one shot, he clearly didn't know the camera was still on him.

This film probably won't be interesting to a general audience today, but it is a must-see for Bond fanatics.

You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. Okay, okay, this is not really a James Bond movie, but it is part of the Bond legend, so what the heck: Here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film and how "Climax!": CASINO ROYALE rates on a scale of 1 to 10:

Title: CASINO ROYALE: It must be a good title; they've used it three times. 7 points.

Pre-credits teaser: In the thrilling, nail-biting intro, "Climax!" host William Lundigan explains a little bit about the card game baccarat -- and not too clearly either. So, no one jumps out of a plane or skydives off a cliff or even gets killed -- but, at least, Lundigan is, well, a nice looking man. But he's not much of a card player, as he deals the cards by tossing them on the floor. I don't think that is according to Hoyle. 2 points.

Opening credits: We don't get the legendary "gun barrel" opening that would become a Bond trademark, but ironically the opening credits are shown over a zoom into a similarly round camera lens. And after being informed that Act I is about to begin, an unseen -- and obviously inept -- gunman either tries to shoot Bond or is just trying to assassinate a stone column in front of the Casino Royale. Either way, he misses Bond by a mile. This is the only thing in the entire film that comes close to an action-packed, special effects sequence. 2 points.

Theme song: No real music, just some vamping with a canned intro tune and a tad of Chopin later in the background. There really isn't much music at all in the film, giving the show that hollow, empty sound that is typical of live TV drama. Apparently this casino can't even afford Muzak. 0 points.

"Bond, James Bond": Barry Nelson is a nice, likable actor and as the first James Bond -- that is, "Card Sense Jimmy Bond" -- he brings to the role the grim intensity of a CPA worrying about changes in the tax code. He dominates the baccarat table of Casino Royale with all the self-assurance of a man who is afraid his wife will find out that he is risking the rent money at "Casino Night" at the local Presbyterian Church fundraiser. Nelson isn't very suave and quite frankly could have introduced himself as "Bland, James Bland." Yes, he is even worse than Timothy Dalton. 3 points.

Bond Babes: Dressed to the nines, like June Cleaver all gussied up for the Country Club dance, Linda Christian is quite the epitome of 1950's fashion -- furs and pearls and everything. She doesn't show much skin, just that little hint of cleavage, but as the world's first Bond Girl she is certainly ritzy eye candy. As an actress, she is far less interesting. 6 points.

Bond Villain: Peter Lorre made a career of being creepy and even in his later years his infrequent bit roles in minor horror movies had a comically bittersweet quality. Here however, despite playing LeChiffre, allegedly one of the most dangerous men that the Soviets have, he just makes you a little bit sad. Looking tired and indifferent, you get the feeling that what he wants most is to sit down and catch his breath. 7 points, but only because I really like Peter Lorre.

Bond Baddies: His trio of "bodyguards" look like refugees from a morticians convention. They don't look so much deadly, as just dead-like. One of them does have a cane that is really a gun, which is the nearest thing the show has to a neat gadget. 4 points.

Sinister Plot: The plot is not all that different from the other versions: Bond must bankrupt the Soviet's treasury by beating LeChiffre in a high-stakes game of baccarat. The big twist is that Jimmy-boy now is American and works for the CIA, the Combined Intelligence Agency, and is helped out by British agent Clarence Leiter (no, not Felix), who, as played by Michael Pate, is far more Bond-like than Nelson. The card match itself is high stakes gambling, but penny-ante drama. 5 points.

Production values: Actually, this might pass for a big-budget production by live-TV standards of the 1950's, but like the quality of the grainy, black-and-white kinescope it was preserved on, it hasn't aged well. The sets are cheaply decorated to look faux classy, but all the rooms seem to be remarkably tiny, allowing for little imagination as far as the camera work. To say it looks primitive is to be overtly kind. 4 points.

Bonus Points: Let's toss in 5 extra points just for reminding us that the so-called "Golden Age of Television" wasn't always that golden. For every "Requiem for a Heavyweight" by Rod Serling or a "Marty" by Paddy Chayefsky, there were plenty of clunky time-fillers like this. And though screenwriters Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis do try to capture the wit and charm of Bond, they also give us lines like this: "Aren't you the fellow who was shot?" "No I was the fellow who was missed!" Groan. Even Austin Powers would avoid dialogue like that.

Summary: Watching this humble production, it is unlikely anyone could have foretold the way the Bond legacy would have prospered into a multi-billion dollar entity. It is a must-see for Bond fanatics and pop culture historians, but only a odd curiosity piece for all others.

Bond-o-meter Rating: 45 points out of 100.

I don't think it was until the internet era that I found out an obscure trivia fact and that was the first media appearance of Ian Fleming's James Bond wasn't Sean Connery in DR NO but Barry Nelson in an American anthology series called CLIMAX which adapted CASINO ROYALE . We all know Bond is the most successful film franchise in history and we all recognise the icons , the babes , the exotic locations , the gadgets , the big set piece stunts etc of a franchise featuring a very British fictional hero . Now imagine a James Bond story without any of these icons . Worse than that imagine if he was an American character ? I do apologise I didn't mean to make you faint

Some people have said this live American TV production deserves some credit for at least sticking to the plot of the original novel which is not something you can say about the films that started going their own way even before the end of the 1960s . My own fascination watching this was entirely down to the opposite reason - it's Bond as film noir that shares nothing in common with the film series . Bond played by Nelson wears a tuxedo and smokes too much but that's the only link you'll recognise . Surviving a murder attempt in the opening scene a policeman refers to it by stating:

" They weren't after your winnings then ? "

" Yeah ? They weren't after my autograph either " And that's the closest we get to show stopping one liners as the entire action takes place in a couple of sets shot in a TV studio as Jimmy tries to beat Peter Lorre's villain in a card game

On its own this obscure TV drama come thriller would be totally forgotten if it wasn't for the fact that it's the first on screen appearance of someone playing Ian Fleming's James Bond . In comparison you can see why Bond became an instant legend in the 1960s with the exotic location filming and the sexy and charismatic Sean Connery playing the role with a hard edge . Not to be too dismissive of the 1954 version of CASINO ROYALE it's fascinating to see Bond done as essentially film noir

This film is a bit of an oddity. It was a live TV play, made a decade before Sean Connery appeared in Dr No. It's nothing like the Bond films we all know and love - anyone expecting action set-pieces will be disappointed as the whole play/film takes place on 2 sets.

THE GOOD POINTS: 1. A rare little gem, bringing James Bond to the screen for the first time. 2. One of the closest adaptations of Ian Fleming's works. 3. Peter Lorre - very good villain.

THE BAD POINTS: 1. Renaming James Bond as "Card-Sense Jimmy Bond". Oh. My. God. 2. Making Bond a Yank. Americans seem to have this need to take credit away from the Brits for everything (Don't even get me started on U-571). 3. They made Felix Leiter a Brit and renamed him Clarence. Sigh...

Anyway, gripes aside it IS worth seeking out if you're a fan. It's available in 2 versions as far as I am aware. The version I have is about an hour long, but there are rumours of a longer version which continues from where the other left off in which the villain returns from the dead to carry on the fight a bit more.

This is not your typical James Bond movie as we know James Bond today. I purchased it on video cassette and started watching it and was surprised to find a black and white movie in which James Bond is a CIA Agent and his counter part Felix Leiter is a British Secret Service agent. As far as action goes in this movie, it is a 1950's style of fights and action, do not expect it to be what you are used to. For something filmed years ago and seen today it is not the best, but for something of its time period it is a good film. The casino sequences are the majority of the movie. There are very few scenes set or shot outside the casino in this film. The actors did a good job of portraying the characters and setting the tone for the action to come. If you are a true James Bond fan then this is a must see movie for you, if not then don't waste your time.

It was the first time we heard the distinctive opening theme music...of a timpani fanfare. It was the first time we saw him order...a Scotch and water. The first time we heard a woman moan: "Oh...Jimmy."

Um, okay, so there were still a few kinks to work out. But it was October, 1954, just one year after Ian Fleming's first novel was published. So what if James Bond didn't hit the ground running? To see the man, okay, played by Norwegian-American Barry Nelson, offer a casual quip after a brush with death, tuxedo unruffled, will stir the heart of any true Bondophile.

Bond (Nelson) is on the case for Combined Intelligence. His mission: Break the bank on Le Chiffre (Peter Lorre), a top Soviet operative in France. To do so, he needs to beat Le Chiffre at baccarat, and not lose his head in the process when his old flame Valerie Mathis (Linda Christian) is threatened with death.

I had to give this TV movie a ranking here in order to review it, though it's no fair using the same metric as with the theatrical Bonds. There was no "Take 2" for the cast of 1954's "Casino Royale", working live and without a net. Shadows are cast over actors' faces. A pasty, bloated Lorre stumbles over many of his lines. Nelson crams his shoulder into a lampshade. Someone can be overheard coughing behind the camera during a tense interrogation scene.

Nelson, an amiably solid journeyman actor, comports himself well under the circumstances. Once you get used to his accent and flattop haircut, a slight twitchiness in his manner, and people calling him "Card Sense Jimmy Bond", he's easy and interesting to watch, managing to look both cool and concerned while still pulling off a nice Roger Moore-ish quip or two.

"So it was you those men were shooting at! Why?"

"Maybe they needed the practice."

Christian is a terrific inaugural Bond girl, even if the flat black-and-white camera image does little justice to her face and form. Lorre, oddly, is the weak sister in this acting trio, but despite some obvious discomfort he does use his famous screen presence to some good effect, especially in a card-table sequence which is the best part of this short movie where he smirks and glowers to cold effect.

There's also a surprisingly gritty torture sequence at the end, with the bad guys using a pair of pliers on Bond's toes. The producers of "Climax!" and director William H. Brown couldn't copy the Fleming novel too closely; it had Bond getting punished in a more tender part of his anatomy. But they do get much of the nub of the story, not a bad feat considering the time limit and production code.

The movie I saw ran just 48 minutes. Apparently there was more to the ending that I missed, though it seemed to have run its course well enough. The last line in my version has Bond saying "Call the police". I don't think you'll hear Bond say that in any of his other movies.

Despite or because of such incongruities, "Casino Royale" is a fascinating glimpse at giving birth to a 1960s icon a decade too soon. As a spy story, it only works in fits and starts, but what matters is its place as the somewhat-neglected beginning of a screen legend.

This was a surprisingly accurate adaptation of part of Fleming's novel and is the debut of Bond on film. There took a few minor *ahem* liberties with the nationality of our favorite superspy and this is a TV movie from the 1950's. If you're lucky enough to ever see this, you won't really be thinking about that. You'll be like wow, I can't believe I actually got to see this!

An old black and white TV show of marginal quality, but significant in one respect. It is the first appearance of Ian Fleming's James Bond.

Although James Bond (Barry Nelson) in this appearance was American, and Lieter (Michael Pate) was British, a reversal of what we usually expect, the story is familiar.

Linda Christian plays Valerie, the old love of Bond that is now with Le Chiffre (Peter Lorre).

A good film, despite the technical quality, and an interesting piece of history as Bond's first appearance.

We even learn how to play Baccarat.

Even allowing for the fact that this was a product if early live TV, this "adaptation" of the Fleming novel is quite dreadful. There were a lot of truly great, even legendary, productions for early live TV.

The principal problem with this episode is the casting of Barry Nelson as Bond -- and changing Bond to an American. Nelson completely fails to bring Bond to life. He totally lacks the charisma and dangerousness of James Bond. There is also zero chemistry between Nelson and Linda Christian, the supposed "love interest." Even Peter Lorre seems to be sleepwalking through his performance as Le Chiffre.

The second fatal flaw in this production is that it completely fails to develop any real believable tension or sense of something important being at risk. The pacing is pretty plodding throughout.

Some of the weakness of this production is in being forced to condense the story into 50 minutes. There is zero room for character development. However, I don't believe Nelson would have given us a credible James Bond even with two hours to do it in.

So, this production is of historical interest as the first filmed adaptation of a James Bond story, but not of much interest otherwise.

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...

James Bond (Barry Nelson), an agent of "Combined Intelligence" and his British contact Clarence Leiter (Michael Pate) set up a high-stakes baccarat game with the goal of bankrupting "Le Chiffre" (Peter Lorre), who is playing with SMERSH (the Soviet counter-espionage organisation) money. Notable only for being the first portrayal of Ian Fleming's iconic secret agent, and, needless to say, difficult to evaluate after five decades of the cinematic juggernaut that is the 007 franchise. Barry Nelson is a bit bland as the sketchily-defined hero, the production values are typical of an inexpensive '50s TV show, and the plot is simplistic (only the rudiments of Fleming's story are depicted). On the other hand, Lorre makes a great, understated but menacing villain (as always) and some elements characteristic of the future franchise are present (a duplicitous 'Bond-girl' (Linda Christian), post-traumatic quips (asked if he was "shot", Bond replies no, he was "missed"), a gimmicky weapon (a silencer-equipped cane-gun), and casual brutality. As 'Climax' was an American anthology series, Bond's and Leiter's nationalities are swapped (even these days, when 'non-traditional' casting is revered, there is something blasphemous about an American James Bond). The provenance of the episode and how it was rediscovered in the 1980s is as interesting as the show itself. Essential viewing for some people, a dated relic for others.

You need to know this first: In the old days TV didn't count count much for quality and any critique would not have shot down a novel that anything was based on.

This Bond movie was VERY fortunately placed on TV, because as a regular theater release it would have absolutely killed the entire Bond franchise, no questions asked ever after. We would have never enjoyed the funny, tongue in cheek, and very stylish Bond movies we got to know with Connery and Moore in the lead, if this had been in theaters, instead of TV, which nobody took serious back then! The acting of the main "Bond" character was lousy. No, it was worse than lousy, and the thing that makes Bond special, his British manners and tongue, were completely butchered by the urge to do it the "American Way". No style, no finesse. Early on, Bond is leaning against the Casino Royale entrance, smoking a cigarette in a completely exaggerated and outright ridiculous "cool" fashion, and it gets worse from there. As a children's theater production, this would have caused parents to applaud, but for grown ups, this is sheer embarrassment! I have to give it historic significance though, and for any serious fan, it will be a MUST watch. In contrast, you have to appreciate, what Broccoli Productions managed to squeeze out of a set of novels, that could have easily gone sour, just as the "Perry Rhodan" series (world's biggest and longest running SciFi franchise of novels ever - what, you didn't know?) did later on.

I never finished this original 1954 Casino Royale when it ran on TNT many years ago, because it was SO bad, that it was not even the least bit good.

Put it this way: If you are an international SciFi buff, you will know about the German "Perry Rhodan" series of novels that has been published weekly (yes, EVERY week!) since 1961 and is still running without interruption and is not known in the US at all, because of it's lousy debut as an Italian "spaghetti SciFi movie". With over two and a half thousand novels spinning a grand saga of the universe in the same series, it is the worlds longest running and most successful SciFi movie failure ever! Why? Because they released their el-cheapo cheesy movie in theaters back in the 1960's and never recovered from that failure. Look for "Mission Stardust", watch it, and know why the entire series failed to be filmed ever after!

This Bond movie is just as bad, and actually worse, and if it had been in theaters, nobody in the movie world would ever have known Bond, period! If you like pain, watch it! If you are a serious fan of Bond, this is a MUST for education and cultural knowledge.

Otherwise, save the pain and watch something else... like the "Flint" movies, which did it the American way, but with every bit of style to be expected from Bond, and of course the Broccoli Bond movies with Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and Timothy Dalton :)

After 3 years of not watching any of the James Bond films, I thought it time to get back in the saddle and do a marathon again; Starting with its very first screen adaptation in the form of this, one I've seen before but never since and my word, is it just as terrible as I remembered. Taking Fleming's first novel and turning it into a barely hour-long television episode would evidently have its fair share of issues, everything is toned down for American television, done on the cheap with all of its shortcomings on full display. Its direction is locked down, structure all over the place and acting that leaves a lot to be desired as the principal cast trips over their lines with very little grace and decorum. American Bonds can be done well, but they fell at the first hurdle, ultimately leaving this version of Casino Royale as nothing more than an obscure oddity in Bonds' illustrious onscreen career.

Casino R.o.y.a.l.e (2006) is better. Dr. No is also better. From Russia with love is also a better. But has long as you don't have high expectations you can enjoy this move. Great acting. Story line is pretty good. Gold finger is better. Thunder ball is also better. You only live twice is also better. On her majesty's secret service is also better. Diamonds are forever is also better. Live and let die. The man with golden gun is also better. The spy who loved is also better. Moon r.a.k.e.r is also better. For your eyes only is also better. O.c.t.o.p.u.s.s.y is also better. Never say never again is also better. A view to a kill is also better. But still a pretty good movie.

Peter Lorre is the one who raises the level of the film, playing the character of villain Le Chiffre. But the other actors are also very good, especially Linda Christian. No special effects, no explosions, no gadgets or other secret weapons, no car chases, motor boats, submarines, planes or missiles, all is filmed in a studio.

This medium-length film, made as an episode of CBS TV show "Climax!", is the first adaptation ever of a James Bond story by Ian Fleming, released just one year after the novel was published. While this version changed a canon trait of the character, making him USA-born instead of British, at least in one other feature he is truer to the original 007 than the following movies' portrayals: Fleming stated that he thought about James Bond as someone much less interesting than we consider today when we think about him. Since Sean Connery starred in "Dr. No", James Bond is expected to be charming and always in the spotlight. However, something different was in Fleming's mind when he wrote his first stories: "Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure, an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department." Well, uncharismatic Barry Nelson is far from charming and indeed much closer to the definition of "neutral" than Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig. On the other hand, the first Bond girl ever, Mexican actress Linda Christian, was beautiful as would be usual, and the actor they called for portraying the villain Le Chiffre was an iconic one: Peter Lorre. The pace of 1954 "Casino Royale" is slower than desirable, there is no exciting action, and the protagonist gambler could be something else instead of a spy with no impact to the presented story. To resume, this medium-length film is not a disaster but is worth watching only for curiousity.

A lot has to be forgiven here. First, this is a recording of a live performance - when something went wrong, they were stuck with it; and since this is cheaply made, they had little rehearsal time, so a quite a number of things go wrong. Secondly, the surviving recording is incomplete and not very good. Third, the producers of the show were trying to make the British Ian Fleming's break-out novel accessible to American audiences only familiar with American espionage B-movies, a '50s genre that has not gotten preserved, so most people now will not be familiar with the drab back-alley feel of this show drawn from that genre. And that the producers felt the need to go this route shows that they themselves really had little understanding of where Fleming was coming from - which was really Somerset Maugham's "Ashenden, or the British Agent," filmed in the early '30s by Alfred Hitchcock. And really, prime Hitchcock is the director Fleming would have had in mind while writing this book. But despite his popularity, Hitchcock himself remained an anomaly in Hollywood throughout the '50s. His ability to shock audiences was well known, but his capacity for sophisticated wit and subtle irony were not easy for most Americans to grasp at the time.

So too Fleming's subversive sense of what at last became known as the "anti-hero" - a man as ruthless as his enemies, able to seduce and destroy women with a glance, then quietly order breakfast in a luxury hotel as if nothing happened. For Fleming, this was a means of preserving the "hard-boiled" detective tradition while at the same time raising uncomfortable questions about what it meant to live comfortably middle-class in cold-war England. Never pointed enough to threaten middle-class readers, but enough to raise their anxiety level to the point of continued interest in the James Bond series.

There's none of that here - the romance is played straight, and the only sophistication comes in the gambling scene. The rest bulls through or stumbles along as one might expect from an American genre thriller of the time.

The major plus factors here are the performances. Most of the cast is miscast, but performs energetically despite that; Peter Lorre performs very weakly, but he happens to be perfectly cast - he is the definitive Le Chiffre! That surprising discovery is reason enough to find this show and give it a view, at least for Bond aficionados.