I don't have anything against Americans. I just have an issue with James Bond, a quintessential British hero icon, being made American for the sake of appealing more to American audiences.

I won’t lie. I love this. It’s hilariously awesome to see Bond portrayed like this. It’s so clearly supposed to evoke the feel of Casablanca. I also love that this is the first appearance of the white tuxedo.

7:53 "My cane is in your back but it is a gun, not a cane" Best line ever.

It's perfectly acceptable for something that was thrown together in no time at all and broadcasted live. Think of it as a live Broadway version Casino Royale. They had one shot, one take to do the whole thing. If it was filmed traditionally I'm sure it would have turned out much better, but that was just the way television was done at the time.

Lol, the Commercial with Oddjob is hilarious!

9:00 sometimes acting in commercials is one Odd Job

The remarkable thing about live television is not that it was always done well, although sometimes it was; the remarkable thing is that it was done at all. It's easy to forget that you are essentially watching 2 live plays taking place on the same "stage" at the same time. The first play is the one you see, Casino Royale, and the second is one you don't see, the two dozen or so people behind the camera, who are frantically moving cameras, cables, and lights, and the floor director who is following everything, making sure it works, and occasionally waving and gesturing wildly at the actors, because someone is too late, too early, or missed a cue. Many live shows have at least one mysterious crash off camera, and this one is no exception. Someone zigged when they should have zagged, and the floor director has to make sure the show recovers from the error, however large or small, and the show continues as if nothing happened. All the movements of the cameras, cables lights and mics have to be rehearsed. The cameramen have to hit their marks at the right time, just like the actors. Cameras often have to be moved onto the set, and then out so they don't show up in the next scene, and the director in the booth has to make sure he makes the right cuts to the right cameras at the right time. And these weren't the itty-bitty television cameras available today. The were big vacuum tube behemoths on dollies and cranes, that required an assistant cameraman to manage the the cables connecting them to the control room and ultimately the transmitter. All of the props had to be in the right place at the right time, and, hopefully work. Someone had to place all the cards in the shoe in right sequence, and Peter Lorre had to deal the right number of cards at the right time, and a camera to one side or overhead, had to be in position to show the cards without intruding into the next shot. If anyone, actor or technician, missed a cue, or was off on their timing, the whole production was in danger of turning into a disaster. There were absolutely no retakes, and there was no cleaning anything up in post production, because there was no post production. When someone walked through a door, you didn't cut, then have the actor move to the set for the room on the other side of the door; the room had to be there, and the floor director and camera men had to have the camera in place there, waiting, and the director in the control booth had to cut to that camera at the right time. Oh, yes, there were no computer generated special effects either. When something appeared to happen, like the bullets hitting the column as Bond ducks at the beginning, chips had to really fly off the column, at exactly the right instant, on the first try, or the effect was ruined, or diminished. So the wonder is that they did it at all, and all of it was live, shots, fights, card games, and special effects, and although it may not measure up to the big budget Bond films of the 60s and beyond, it is, in it's own way, an achievement.

When this 1954 production was made, there were only two (2) Bond novels published. I only defend this up to a point. But a lot of Bond fans slam this more than it deserves. One of the writers was Charles Bennett, who co-wrote the 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much (he would have a credit in the 1956 remake). Also, I will say one more time, Bond NEVER CALLS HIMSELF JIMMY. Leiter does, Valerie does. Peter Lorre does. BUT BOND NEVER CALLS HIMSELF JIMMY. The one time Barry Nelson speaks his character's name he says, "This is James Bond."

Finding the use of advert breaks absolutely hilarious!

1:55 it was an anthology series trope. I don’t know if EVERY anthology series did it, but a lot of the major ones, such as this one, and the Twilight Zone, did. I believe the point was to build anticipation for the episode’s story.

I thought this was very well done for 1954. They had no idea what Bond was going to become.

0:34 I find it jarring to hear the words 'Mystery' and 'Theatre' together without the word 'Science' between them.

Dang, some of the music (especially during the moment where "Jimmy" is almost killed in the beginning) was used in the 50's Superman show. Barry Nelson doesn't deliver a bad performance (in fact, you can tell that he is trying to do his best despite the fact that he got the script at the last minute and didn't rehearse it that much from what he has said in an interview), but I agree, Michael Pate should have been Bond while Barry should have been Felix. Seeing Peter Lorre as LeChiffre was a pleasure. And it was surprising to see Jan Arvan playing the henchman that threatens "Clarence" while he talks to the phone. But yeah, this really isn't an auspicious media introduction to Bond. I respect the actors for actually acting and delivering the lines live, but yeah, it really isn't good for a Bond story.

That commercial with Richard Kiel (Jaws) was cute. He's such a good dude. There a dope episode of No Small Parts all about him if anyone is interested.

Jimmy Bond! Where's his brother Bimmy Bond?

I think it was okay. Especially when you consider that it was live and filmed for tv in the 1950s.

2:13 Marksman aiming right there

Meh, still better than the disastrous 1967 Casino Royale spoof in my opinion.

at least it has a hell of a lot more to do with the source material than CR 1967 did

You have to remember, that this was a short, quickly-thrown-together television production, performed *live* - and with a budget equal to a typical community-college play. Is it great? No. Is it even average? I am not sure. But, I do not think "above average" could have been expected. I agree, that the actor portraying Leiter would have been better for Bond - as Fleming's book-Bond is *not* a particularly handsome guy (in our modern-day sense). He is definitely *not* a suave "pretty boy" like Brosnan. See the Wiki article below, with Fleming's own illustration. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond (from the article) "Fleming decided that Bond should resemble both American singer Hoagy Carmichael and himself and in Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd remarks, 'Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless.' Likewise, in Moonraker, Special Branch Officer Gala Brand thinks that Bond is 'certainly good-looking ... Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold.'"

Funny you should say "it would have been more interesting if the cameraman had tripped or something..." There was an urban legend that claimed the original ending to this featured the "dead" Le Chiffre getting up and moving off camera. That may have sprung from the clumsy fade-to-black in earlier prints of this. But apparently, the only restored ending was the one you detailed--the wounded Le Chiffre threatening Valerie and getting gunned down by Bond. (The dead-man-gets-up thing did happen on an episode of Climax...but it was in an adaptation of The Long Goodbye.)

That advert for shredded wheat was that Richard Kiel (jaws)?

Hilarious.The interior shots look like the lowest rent high-school production of "Casablanca."

Why is James Bond's suit more crinkled & ill-fitting than that of any other cast member?

I agree with Calvin Dysons' criticisms but he should have taken into account that when the program aired no nobody knew what was going to happen to James Bond in the future. fleming was an unknown writer and very few people had heard of 007. That is probably why thelead role was cast to whoever was available. Everybody more than likely thought that the show was a one nights' piece of entertainment and that was about it.

Lazenby is better than Nelson

What's hilarious is that the guy that plays Felix, (or Clarence), actually would've been a decent choice for Bond here.

I've been digging deep into all things BOND, which means digging deep into your KZfaq series. Can't get enough!

"Yes I really like FISH!" :)

In an interview with Starlog Magazine in October 1983, Barry Nelson said: So they went through and cut three words here, a line there, a half-a-word here, and their script ended up looking like a bad case of tic-tac-toe. I tell you it was so frightening that when I entered my only thought was, 'Oh, God, if I can only get out of this mother!'. I was very dissatisfied with the part, I thought they wrote it poorly. No charm or character or anything.

Haha! Gotta love those commercials with the Bond villains! =)

The host, indeed, was the host every week on Climax!

Watching this video I realized that although I’ve had a video tape copy for like 35 years, I never got to the end. There are good live television dramas. Look up a guy named Rod Serling and Requiem for a Heavyweight.

In case you weren’t aware, Barry Nelson played Stuart Ullman in Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. I was so happy when I finally made that connection.

It is silly that you can't understand the value of this first production. You are comparing the standards of 1954 in TV with modern cinema. This production was live, like seeing Bond on stage. There was no video in those days. Not too many people knew James Bond, less they would know about the gun barrel presentation. The few who knew Bond knew him from the novels, and by 1954 there were only two: Casino Royale and Live and let Die. Can you imagine how great was for a fan back then, to see a Bond story on live TV? You need to read more before making a review. To understand this production you need to focus on the historic time when it was shown, to understand the decisions taken. Of course, joking about it is ok, but also misleading for those who never saw it.

Not much worse than early live BBC broadcasts of 'The Avengers'. For all of the difficulties of producing live TV, it is a gem.

Where's your Casino Royale 1967 review?

That was seriously interesting! Thanks for making a hair splitting video about this relic.

Great review! Once I read that Peter Lorre just walked to his dress-room after he was shot in the episode. Is that true?

I read that the ending was cut due to the supposedly dead Peter Lorre opening his eyes before they cut.

No, Calvin. He didn't "Nut-crack" his toes, he was pulling his toenails out - a real and effective torture method

People are being far too critical about this. Do I think that this is some sort-of lost masterpiece? No. But how can one honestly compare this to the eventual 50+ years of Bond films and then the 2006 film which had so much more to work with then this ever could have had and expect hidden greatness? This was early television theatre, filmed with a small budget no greater than any other dinner theatre, designed to be quick nightly entertainment and working within the television and creative conventions of its time. This was filmed live, and like all live things, there are errors made upon the parts of the participants. People are upset because in this production they took liberties from the source material? All of these dinner theatres did that, and it is not like nobody else has ever done such a thing before (as if the Bond franchise itself never did that before!) I think that it is just disingenuous to compare this to what became and think that this most-earliest production is being otherwise all wrong. Does this mean you cannot still criticize this performance? Of-course not! There is still such a thing as bad art or datedness. But you cannot compare this against the eventual James Bond films, and especially the ones over 60 years later, because, in 1954, there was no James Bond yet as we now know and expect him. These folks back then had Sam Spade and Phillip Marlowe and film-noir to guide them.

Calvin’s critique is unwarranted. It’s the equivalent of criticizing O’Brien for using stop motion in the 33 version of King Kong compared to the far superior CGI technique used in Jackson’s version. You use what’s available considering the limitations of the time, the 1954 “Casino Royal” is pretty good.

The Bridge hand in Fleming's "Moonraker" *novel* is every bit as thrilling as the Texas Hold'em match in the modern "Casino Royale" *film*. The book's chapter devoted almost solely to that one hand of Bridge...was so edge-of-your-seat exciting, that it made me want to learn the game! I heartily recommend reading that novel, one of Fleming's best Bond novels. The other recommended novels are "Casino Royale," "Live and Let Die," "From Russia With Love," and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service."

If you needed another commercial break, you could've taken in one of Geoffrey Holder's 7UP commercials! :P

11:08 "The 42nd National Safety Conference." That's got to be a hell of a weekend. Hotel parties, strippers, Benzedrine-for-all, 1950's style mash-up. The pioneering message they finally came up with proves how much work was actually done: "Be Careful"

What are your thoughts of the TV show now in light of having read the book it was based on?

One good thing, , , and only one. . . Peter Lorre. He would have made a great villain in the official series; and really captures the repulsive, toad-like, quality of Fleming's Le Chiffre

Calvin Dyson: you are correct sir, I stand corrected, I didn't start watching tv till 1956, I was age 9 and was not allowed to watch any show I wanted to so I missed out on Hitchcock till the mid to late 60s. Back then we had fewer channels but better quality shows. Then cable came along and ruined everything with 500+ channels of crap to choose from.

the only good choice was that Peter Lorre was the villain. Can't go wrong casting Peter Lorre as the villain. Also makes me wish they would've casted Vincent Price as the villain in a Bond film.

4:14 Hilarious! Good job, Calvindyson! I love all of your videos! You are incredibly funny! Keep up the good (or should I say great?) work!

Very entertaining, Calvin. Love your sarcasm.

I Love The Jaws Commercial

It's decent for early Bond. It's a product of it's time. And it's made for an American audience!

The last few seconds of the end credits are still missing but they could be easily recreated along with the music. Also it was originally broadcast in colour, we could recolourise it. Then the film will finally be restored!

Oh my god...Le Chiffre is the little fish-faced fellow in Casablanca!

The moderator is William Lundigan. He was a contract player with Warner Brothers in the 1930's and 40's. He had a good career and ocassionally starred in a feature or two.

You have to understand this was a live Television broadcast. Basically a short play. No its not good but it was made on a budget of 2£ and a tin of Spam.

yea...that was live tv in the fifties...and for audiences back then to enjoy it, the hero had to be an all-american boy next door....but alot of those 'playhouse 90' and other live action pieces were quite brilliant, especially for their time...and that's what this must be...of it's time....

Hahaha - I think this is your funniest review yet! :')

the funny part about peter lorre playing the bad guy in a spy movie is that he was the good spy in his own series of movies as Mr. Moto. As for this being the 'first' bond, Leslie Howard should get the nod for his roll as either 'The scarlet Pimpernel' or as Pimpernel Smith. James Mason also predate Sean Connery and did several 'spy' movies of his own. Depends on your definition of spy. There are lots of movies in this genre going back to the 30's and probably before with the theme of the British Secret Service agent fighting evil (or the japanese secret service with Mr. Moto). I'm sure there are lots of other examples of spy movies along the lines of the Bond series based on that one theme. Fun to watch.

This was performed on live tv no delay no redos So considering it’s not that bad

in the books bond never had that many women. This is before the formula was set. So a written correspondence wouldn't be that unrealistic. Also, American audiences were used to seeing the hero be American so it makes sense. PS watch more twilight zone 1959-1964 its great.

Instead of going away from the shots being fired at him, bond goes towards the shots at the concrete pillar. Very funny in my opinion, robert wagner would've been more convincing then as james bond.

It could lead to a CLIMAX!

Pahaha! Go easy on this, it was obviously made with a budget of about $100. I think we should also be grateful that it's survived at all - very little television from the 1950s has. This is interesting because it's a glimpse into a world that is almost impossible to imagine now - a world where James Bond ISN'T one of the biggest and most instantly recognisable cultural icons in the world. In 1954 he was just some obscure character in a whatever book! Mad.

Of course you have the rest of the episodes of James bond Jr to review as well as the various James Bond Video games from the early 80's flair to more recent outings like Bloodstone and Goldeneye Reloaded so I suppose those 2 vids can wait.

The Print found on the MGM DVD is missing the last 2 minutes from the original broadcast (hence the sudden ending), the footage of which was later found. What I find strange is that MGM never reinserted that missing footage at the end.

That Richard Kiel ad...Wow!

I can see Calvin, that you hate James being called Jimmy. That's saying something because I have a Bond history book if you will called Bond on Bond, written by Roger Moore himself in celebration with the whole 50 years thing. But in this book, he calls 007 Jimmy Bond, and only seems to call him James in quotes and stuff. And this is coming from Roger himself! Negatively shocking!

This is the only bond film I have never seen, I look out for it in charity shops just in case they have it. I have seen all the others, including Casino Royale 1967 and never say never again. The 1967 Casino Royale is so funny in a way. I like the part where bond says something about a poison pen letter and the part where the guy in the bowler hat is knocked on conscious by hit hat shooting a bullet.

Who’d have thought the first visual Bond story was an American TV episode

After the first "commercial break" I had a feeling what the second one would be

Let's all agree, Peter Lorre as Le Chiffe was the best thing about this adaptation.

Cubby Broccoli may have supervised the 1954 CBS TV production of Casino Royale! If true, this changes everything! According to Wikipedia, an Albert R. Broccoli was the executive producer of Climax!, the 1954-1958 anthology series in which Casino Royale was the third episode. The credits for Casino Royale list a producer and an associate producer, but no executive producer. Wikipedia lists the production company for Ciimax!, as being Desilu, the company owned by Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball. This does make sense. By the mid-1950''s, much of CBS's prime time schedule was supplied by Desilu. Lucy probably knew Cubby Broccoli in 1954. Reportedly they had dated briefly many years previously. A key question, By October 1954, had Broccoli moved permanently to London?

I liked your commercial breaks. I remember the Vics Formula 44 commercial, it's a real classic. The show host was standard in this type of show. Alfred Hitchcock and Rod Serling were way above the others with their intros. The live broadcast wouldn't have made much difference one way or the other. In the 1950's television production values were low. Situation comedies could get away with it, "The Honeymooners" is a great example. What separated the James Bond movies from previous spy movies was the exotic locations, off beat plots, and being in color. A handsome leading man with a British accent also helped. Granted a cockney accent probably wouldn't have worked. Had Bond continued on the TV route an entire genre, and its spoofs, probably would have never happened.

considering what Calvin thinks of of the ending, I suppose you could say that this episode of climax was kinda anticlimactic!

I keep thinking what Bond would have been like if Ron Sterling of The Twilight Zone fame had written for those movies.

Nice Richard Kiel advert

Peter Lorre looks quite a bit older than he did in The Maltese Falcon. 😂

God I haven’t seen anything this stiff since I ate that box of viagra...

Lol at the Jaws commercial, genius.

Fun Fact: There was a rumour that when the broadcast ended Peter Lorre just got up and walked off to his dressing room, but the camera's hadn't turned off yet so the audience thought Le Chiffre was still alive. This in turn lead to mass confusion the next time the Climax show played because people thought it was a sequel to Casino Royale. However, no footage of this has been found and there is no evidence that someone from the production team backed it up so it's most likely false.

Hey Calvin could you do a worst to best bond actors?

Calvin Dyson: are you sure about that? I remember watching an episode of Hitchcock from 1964. I will look into it and if you are correct, I will conceded that as fact.

Welcome to 1950s network television.

It's funny how you said you said near the end you'd have liked a mistake, because the first episode of "Climax!", so I've read, had a dead character get up and walk offstage.

I mean, it’s not good, but it’s interesting that it’s the only Bond movie that was created in close proximity to the publication of ‘Casino Royale.’ I wonder if the incidental time period created a certain feel or vibe that cannot be replicated, that corresponds it better with the book, and even overrides deviations from the source material

Ur funny, are you famous yet!! Enjoying your channel, do Licence To Kill pls

Can you do do 1967 casino royale review again.

That bit of kinoscopic embarrassment should have remained buried in the past.

We all know James Bond is a British hero but in 1954 it would not have worked with American audiences. All the other characters are foreign Micheal Pate was Australian & Peter Lorre was Hungarian so of course they needed to make Bond American. 1950's America was a conservative time & audiences couldn't identify with a foreign hero.

Oddjob has Covid, what a dreadful cough.

Have you ever thought about doing a series of my weekly bonds about all of the bond games from the very first ever bond game (what ever that was) to 007 legends and then a video ranking the games in a top something list?I mean you must be running out of to review until the next bond film so its probably gonna be a good filler.

I'm a huge Peter Lorre fan and a MAJOR mistake did happen, but has been cut out. Quoting from the screenwriter Charles Bennett "Peter expired as the camera sent the show live. But then, the director failed to push the right button, and instead of this scene jumping to the next, the cameras remained on 'dead' Peter. Rightfully concluding that his job was done, (Lorre) rose and quietly departed to his dressing room, smiling whimsically, to the utter bewilderment of possibly 30 million viewers." Poor Peter was appalled when he found out what happened.

The host's name was William Lundigan and yes, he served to introduce the weekly episode in the anthology series Climax! throughout its run. Seeing as how it was a different story each week with non-recurring characters you pretty much needed a host. Think The Twilight Zone.

The early days of television were ignorant and overly cautious. A recipe for disaster. But it is a collector's oddity and is part of my collection. Warts and all.

The camera-shaped bomb and the cane-shaped weapon are not in any James Bond film , only in the book.

Can you review other roger moore movies

Hi Zorin. I'm afraid my AVTAK got taken down by MGM... Again... This had happened before (and usually does happen on initial uploading of all these videos) but I always appeal (the clips usage is under fair use) and usually the videos are left alone. However for some reason because this is the 2nd time MGM have blocked the AVTAK review, if I appeal again and they reject it, my whole channel gets taken down. I'm taking the opportunity to make an updated AVTAK review so you can expect that soon!