This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

If you thought that the first screen Bond outing was Dr. No and that Sean Conery was the first Bond, you'd be wrong. Coming the better part of a decade before Dr. No was made and Goldfinger firmly established the image of Bond in the public consciousness, Bond came first to American television screens. For one hour in October 1954, Ian Fleming's first Bond novel was broadcast live on CBS. Despite the films that followed, it remains interesting viewing.Despite being merely an hour in length, the script Anthony Ellis and Charles Bennett is a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the original novel. The central plot of the novel, of Bond going to a French casino to bankrupt Le Chiffre at the baccarat tables and thus ensure his death at the hands of his Soviet paymasters, is front and center here. Much of the incidental events from the novel are in this version as well including one of Le Chiffre's henchmen threatening Bond with a gun hidden in a cane during the game. Even when incidents from the novel are difficult to do on screen to network censors and the limitations of live television production, versions of them still appear. These include an attack on Bond while entering the casino and even a version of Bond being tortured after the game in present though both mean that it's less gruesome than what both the novel and the 2006 EON film presented us with though it certainly seems to be no less painful for Bond. In a way the adaptation here is more faithful to its source material than many of EON's subsequent adaptations of Fleming's novels.Where it is less faithful is in its casting. Perhaps the most notable change, and the one most likely to hanker fans of both the novels and the later films, was the decision to make Bond an American in a move that seems to have been made to pander to the American audience who would hopefully tune in. Actor Barry Nelson (who is perhaps better known for his role as the hotel manager who interviews Jack Nicholson's character in the opening of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining) was cast in the role of "Card Sense Jimmy" Bond who was an agent of a fictional spy agency called Combined Intelligence. Nelson's Bond reflects little of the character that Fleming wrote in the original novel with his squared jaw and lack of charm which at times seems more in the vain of the gumshoe characters out of countless film noir works from the period. Yet Nelson is also able at times to show a more vulnerable character, especially in the torture sequence, which the EON films wouldn't bring out until Dalton and Craig took on the role decades later. It's a credible attempt at bringing Bond to life but it's also one that shows just how crucial the casting of that lead role can be.Other members of the cast work better. The characters of Vesper Lynd and Bond's French ally Rene Mathis are combined into a single character named Valerie Mathis played by Linda Christian. Christian does an admirable job bringing the first Bond Girl to life as a character though the adaptation not only combines the characters together but also gives them a past relationship that echoes Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca made a dozen years before. Another departure from the novel, and an interesting reversal of what was done with the Bond character, is the casting of the Australian actor Michael Pate in the role of British agent Clarence Leiter who takes the place of CIA agent Felix Leiter. Pate does an admirable job though the friendship between this particular Leiter and Bond seems a bit forced, especially in the opening minutes of the production. Like Nelson's Bond, the performances are credible but they're also far more admirable attempts as well.The most notable member of the 1954 Casino Royale cast though would be its villain. Playing Le Chiffre is none other than Peter Lorre, an iconic character actor notable for films including 1931's M and 1941's The Maltese Falcon. Lorre was perfect casting for the role and he brings a wonderful sense of menace mixed with charm to the first Bond villain, something that's especially present during the interactions between Bond and Le Chiffre during the first part of the production. Where Lorre really shines is during the last act when he taunts Bond as he's being tortured, mixing the charm and menace together in equal measure. If anything from this 1954 production pre-echoes what EON would do later, it's Lorre's Le Chiffre and that isn't a bad thing at all.For Bond fans, the 1954 Casino Royale makes for interesting viewing. Coming nearly a decade before the Eon films that have now firmly rooted the character for most people, it is a fascinating look at bringing Bond to the screen. Even with its faults and limitations of the format in which it was made, it remains at least a curiosity and at best something that die-hard fans of Her Majesty's secret servant should view at least once.

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 gameOn 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

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 :)

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).