Change Your Image
Kobalt44
Reviews
Casino Royale (1967)
Too silly, even for the 1960s.
In the 1960s when satirical, parodying silliness was all the rage, particularly the parodying or satirising of spies and espionage during the Cold War of the 60s, Casino Royale appears in 1967 as a 'swinging' movie version of Ian Fleming's book of the same name, which was originally published in 1952 or 53 if my memory is right. But this film simply does not work. The swinging sixties' version of the book is about as silly as it can get with absolutely no art in its silliness. Its attempts at comedic surrealism were in vain.
The other Bond films up to the Casino Royale of 1967 starring the softly-spoken, Scottish James Bond everyone liked were cleverly satirical and ironic with Sean Connery delivering his lines with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek and a wry smile on his lips. And the iconic 60s' t.v. series that hilariously sent up glamour spies and espionage, Get Smart, was not only cleverly satirical but an exceedingly artful parody bordering on pure genius with Don Adams and the supporting cast saying their inspired lines written by the likes of Buck Henry with perfect timing and delivery. But Casino Royale, an 'unofficial' Bond film and the first to use the name without starring Sean Connery, is just silly for the sake of silliness with practically no redeeming features (see below).
I have seen Casino Royale probably three times since 1967, including at the pictures during its Australian release back then, and with each viewing it gets worse. A couple of months of ago it was screened on commercial t.v. here on a Saturday night, I think it was, and about fifteen minutes' worth of it was all I could take. Even for one as nostalgic for the 60s as I am, Casino Royale was too much for one viewer, this one.
A big-name cast doing and saying silly unfunny things with pretty, mini-skirted girls with the Mary Quant look scattered round rural and urban Britain are simply not enough to make a film effective anymore, if they ever were. Indeed, so averse am I to watching the 1967 version of Casino Royale, I am even put off going to see the current version of the film of the same title. However, I take comfort from the fact that no matter how silly and bad the remade version of Casino Royale may possibly be, it just cannot be as silly and bad as the film made in 1967.
PS. I've given it two stars out of ten for Burt Bacharach's memorable theme music for Casino Royale and Herb Alpert's marvellous trumpet playing of that theme. The music was the best aspect of the entire movie. All right, then! 1967's Casino Royale may have one redeeming feature.
Submarine X-1 (1968)
'Orrible
This film is supposed to be a fictionalised account of the ultimately unsuccessful British underwater raid on that mighty German battleship, the Tirpitz. All I can say on it is the acting is absurdly staged, the script is about as hackneyed and unbelievable as they get, and the characterisation is terribly shallow and stereotypical; as well it is wildly historically inaccurate even allowing for the inevitable artistic licence taken in making films on historical subjects.
All in all, it is hard to believe that this flick was made in the late 60s (1968) and I agree with another contributor here that it seems to be the sort of film that they made twenty-five years earlier, i.e. actually during the war. Some twenty-three years after the end of the Second World War, Submarine X-1 is still ludicrously and woodenly propagandist. Even the action is unbelievable with German paratrooper raids on the naval base etc.
I realise that it is only a war movie, doubtlessly made for a young male viewing audience, and it is silly to take such films seriously, and I don't; however, Submarine X-1 even as a time-killer for boys on rainy weekend afternoons is 'orrible.
Fortunately for the viewing public, James Caan, who is a really excellent actor, went on to much bigger and better things straight after Submarine X-1. Who could ever forget his stellar, though uncredited, performances in 1969 as Rupert of Rathskeller in the "To Sire With Love" episodes of Get Smart? Brilliant! And from there on his career really forged ahead.
Analyze That (2002)
Not worth the price of admission: a good idea spoilt.
Analyze That was a big disappointment. A potentially very funny film with a good, well-tried storyline and a good cast was spoilt by some very overdone, very silly, and very juvenile vulgarity. Crudity is only funny if it is cleverly ironic or satiric and parodying, Analyze That is none of these. The whole film seemed to revolve around how many times those actors playing assorted criminal slags could spit out the f-word in the dialogue of a scene, which is plainly pathetic as a device for comedy. The director, Harold Ramis, who has been a good comedic actor and a clever writer for other films, should go back and rethink his whole recent approach to comedy if this movie is any indication. And what is the point of having a resource such as De Niro if you can't use him better than this, or did he decide not to try too hard for this one. This film was just painful to watch. Analyze That is not worth the price of admission for this viewer.
The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006)
Nice photography, poor cinema
This gets 2/10 from me for the nice shots of the Irish countryside, and that's about what it is worth. As a film, they need to go back to the drawing-board. The acting is juvenile. The story is trite, and tritely written. And the film's direction does nothing to alleviate these flaws. As has been said on this board, the characterization in this film is superficial, one-dimensional, and stereotypical. The British in Ireland are portrayed as nasty and malicious, and no doubt they were, but they are portrayed stereotypically so, and one thinks that there must have been more to them than that. And the Irish are portrayed with a kind of inverted condescension.
Anyway, it was clear to this viewer that The Wind That Shakes the Barley is rather lacking in historical and social depth. I realize that historically-set films must necessarily simplify and compress historical events for the sake of time-action continuity and are allowed a certain artistic licence with historical facts, but TWTSTB oversimplifies and guts necessary historical facts, and embellishes the hell out of those that remain, making the whole film shallow and tediously biased. Indeed, all I can say is that this film is rather lacking all round, except for some good shots of the countryside, as I have said. In short, it is a case of nice photography, but poor cinema.