--- title: "Casino Royale: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/casino-royale-1967/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/casino-royale-1967" critics_score: 44 critics_reviews: 8 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Casino Royale (1967): what the critics said Critics' score 44 from 8 reviews: 2 positive, 2 mixed, 4 negative. Almost every critic agrees that Casino Royale is a mess, and most blame the same thing: too many directors, too many writers, and a cast of stars each pulling in a different direction. Overstuffed, disorganised and incoherent are the words that recur, and even the reviews that enjoy the film concede that nothing in it holds together. Praise lands in the margins: Burt Bacharach’s score, the psychedelic sets, and the turns from Peter Sellers, Orson Welles and Woody Allen are picked out again and again. The disagreement is over whether the chaos is a fault or the point, and the spread is wide. The New Yorker finds the film funny in spite of itself, Empire rates it above most of the official Bond films, and Collider recommends it as a fever dream of sixties excess. The harshest verdicts run the other way: Film Comment and Den of Geek call it unfunny and barely watchable, and RogerEbert.com counts it among the most excessive films ever made. The two lowest scores are the most recent. ## The New Yorker — Brendan Gill Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 29 April 1967. The critic declares the film very funny despite its wildly disorganized plot full of sight gags and anfractuosities. He praises the producers for brilliantly cracking the challenge of making a Bond spoof without Connery and highlights the charming performances and clever casting. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1967/05/06/all-for-laughs) ## Empire — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 28 April 2006. The critic describes the 1967 spoof as overpopulated, overstuffed, wildly inconsistent and a total mess, yet finds it expensively insane and entertaining thanks to its terrific Burt Bacharach score, psychedelic sets, inspired lunacy and cameos. It is deemed more engaging and appealing than 75 per cent of the official Bond films despite its flaws. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/casino-royale-2-review/) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 1967. The review describes the film as a wacky comedy extravaganza attempting to spoof Bond but lacking discipline and cohesion overall. It notes some very funny situations and amusing gags from the cast including Niven and Sellers, though many elements feel strained. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1966/film/reviews/casino-royale-1200421405) ## The New York Times — Bosley Crowther Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 29 April 1967. The critic views the film as an overpopulated, extravagant burlesque that piles on stars, jokes, and gags to the point of becoming repetitious and tedious. While acknowledging some lively sequences, he finds the slapstick approach and sprawling length make it wearying rather than satisfying. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/books/01/06/17/specials/southern-casino.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 1 May 1967. The critic finds the film a chaotic mess resulting from too many cooks improvising without discipline or a coherent script. He notes some amusing moments from Woody Allen and the presence of Orson Welles but concludes the overall indulgence and lack of organization make it one of the most excessive films ever made. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/casino-royale-1967) ## Film Comment — Mark Harris Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 1 May 2017. The critic describes the film as a fascinatingly awful, unfunny, and incoherent hodgepodge resulting from its troubled production with multiple directors and writers. It singles out the over-the-top parody elements and lack of coherence as major flaws while noting its impact on the Bond franchise at the time. [Read the review](https://www.filmcomment.com/cinema-67-revisited-live-twice-casino-royale/) ## Collider — Matthew Mosley Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 1 March 2023. The critic describes the 1967 Casino Royale as a baffling, disjointed mess resulting from multiple directors and production chaos, but one that becomes mesmerizing as a fever-dream celebration of 1960s excess when embraced on its own surreal terms. They single out the strong visual aesthetic, Burt Bacharach’s soundtrack, and standout performances from Peter Sellers and Orson Welles for praise amid the absurdity. [Read the review](https://collider.com/casino-royale-1967-james-bond-movie/) ## Den of Geek — Chris Farnell Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 13 April 2022. The critic calls the 1967 film an utter catastrophe and bizarre mess that is barely watchable despite its stellar cast and talented writers. It singles out the troubled production, offensive elements, and chaotic structure for complaint while noting buried good ideas like the meta concept of multiple Bonds. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/good-movies-original-casino-royale-james-bond/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/casino-royale-1967.md