I must be one of the only people who prefers the 1967 version.

Rating: 4/10 (31 March 2007)

I have always said that the James Bond franchise died after Sean Connery left. "Casino Royale" affirms that. Like every installment after Connery left, this one consists of overwrought gimmicks and a less than obvious story. Twenty minutes into the movie, we had already had enough of the action (that whole chase scene in Madagascar would have been cool with Jackie Chan, but it's boring with anyone else). True, there are a few hot babes to move things along, but they can't equal the quality set up by the first three movies. Daniel Craig did far better in "Munich".
And another thing: why does it seem like so many people hate John Huston's 1967 version of "Casino Royale"? True, that one was totally silly, but it wasn't pretending to be anything else. And besides, how can you not admire a cast of David Niven, Peter Sellers, Woody Allen and Ursula Andress (hubba hubba!)? My point is that this version is not worth your while. I recommend avoiding it.