Best Bond film since Licence to Kill–maybe since OHMSS.
This is actually more or less what happened in the book. Le Chiffre (‘The Cypher’) is a Communist Party operative who handles money for Soviet spies. Unfortunately he has a bit of a gambling problem. He’s lost a lot of the Party’s money, and he needs to ‘win it back’. (A common theme of addicted gamblers is the believe that he only needs one more hand to solve his problems.)
Le Chiffre is breaking Bond’s balls and is about to kill him – or the girl; I don’t remember exactly – when a couple of SMERSH agents come in and shoot Le Chiffre for stealing from the Party. Although they are Soviet agents and Bond is their enemy, they leave him alive because he’s not a specified target in the operation and it wouldn’t be ‘professional’ to kill him. It might be a Deus ex machina, but the threat of being assassinated was the reason Le Chiffre held the high-stakes baccarat game and SMERSH were always a threat.
I agree with this statement in its entirety.
And to Gangster Octopus:
[spoiler]I understand what you mean, but as someone pointed out earlier, the real Bond has to get by on luck sometimes. This scenario played out far better and more believably than if Bond had managed to pull some gadget out of – what, some orifice? – and used that to escape. Or, perhaps even worse, if the “good guys” had shown up at the last minute to save him.
I think this scene was written as well as it could have been: you already knew that the people who were after Le Chiffre were going to catch up to him eventually (as had already been demonstrated during the Texas Hold 'Em game), so it’s an acceptable coincidence that they got to him when they did.[/spoiler]
:mad:
Obviously, you ain’t female or gay! :mad: :mad: :mad:
I think you baccarat-o-philes are missing one very important point, which is that lots and lots of people know how to play Poker, and hold’em in particular. Thus, the audience can understand what’s going on, the give and take, what individual cards mean, etc.
Pretty much no one knows how to play baccarat.
You can call that “selling out” or some snotty phrase involving the lowest common denominator, but if the point of the movie is to entertain, people need to understand what’s going on.
I know how to play baccarat–from reading *Casino Royale * back in 1975!
Johnny L.A. I knew how it all fit together and like I said it only bothered me a bit. But it is still rather disappointing, IMO.
That is essentially the way it happens in the novel.
Not to mention that Baccarat is not remotely a game of skill, and is probably the most boring card game in existance. Let’s deal out cards along a set procedure and see which hand wins.
Poker at least sets up tension and intrigue between players with the ability to say with a straight face “I’m a better poker player than you.”
It is like blackjack, is it not?
Gangster Octopus, Bond was spared because the girl bargained with Mr. White and/or his henchmen to spare Bond’s life. She negotiated (while being tortured in the other room in the ship, apparently) that she would obtain both the password and the money and that she would turn the money over to him in return for Bond’s life. (It was at this point, then, that Mr. White killed LeChiffre but allowed Bond to live.) This bit of exposition comes at the end, IIRC, while Bond is talking to M from the boat.
On the subject of Baccarat: as I understand it, there is next to no skill involved in Baccarat as everything pretty much depends on the luck of the draw. The movie makers needed a game in which Bond and LeChiffre could pit wits.
Re who did the poisoning, LeChiffre’s girlfriend put the poison in his drink while it was sitting on the bar prior to its being served. (There were several identical drinks though, IIRC, and I wondered at the time how she knew which one would be given to Bond. Perhaps the answer lies on the cutting room floor.)
Re Vesper and the counting thing: yes, she could add, as she said to Mathis when she remarked after one of his expositions as to the amount of money on the table: “I can add…it’s part of the accountant thing, you know.”
Re Bond bursting through the wall: I could only think how lucky he was that there were no studs in the wall. 
I, too, didn’t understand Vesper’s suicide. She traded Bond’s life for the money so I saw no reason for her to have killed herself…unless she felt such guilt over her weakness for Bond that she was willing to help finance terrorists in order to save his life, perhaps. Still, it was never really clear why she killed herself and to me this is the only troublesome plot point in the move.
Count me in as one who loved Casino Royale. I have loathed every Bond since Connery, and to me this was every bit as good as a Connery Bond movie. Different, but just as good.
shrug If you notice, Bond gets away with a lot more on brute force and a substantial amount of luck rather than having just the right device that Q Branch just happened to issue him.
I suspect the people who dislike it largely fall in the category of feeling that way becuase it wasn’t a formulamatic live-action cartoon. Ever since Roger Moore took the role the series had been devolving into a parody of itself, to the point that other parodies or homages (True Lies, The Incredibles) were better Bond movies than actual Bond films. The Dalton-era films were a little better about this, but still tended to fatuousness, and it didn’t help that while Dalton is a decent actor he lacked the “Saint”-ly playboy charm and flair for tossing off witticisms that Moore at least had going for him. Brosnan played the role like a fanboy imitation of Roger Moore, and most of his action sequences seemed to be clearly filmed against a greenscreen; the cable TV-grade CGI in the last few movies didn’t improve matters, either. One solid punch would have taken him right out of the game, and the mistake of pairing him up with Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies isn’t just that she showed him up, but that it would actually have been a better film with her as the protagonist and Bond as the sidekick.
We wlll not even speak of Die Another Day, except that one could have made a better film by pieciing together clips from previous Bond films rather than film that reeking homage to the franchise. Normally, Halle Berry brings a movie down a few notches by appearing in it, but I don’t think even her anti-thespianism could have sank the movie further.
As for Casino Royale–and I am, of course, referring to the recent film–it’s a brutal, energetic, surprising film that took a lot of risks thematically and structurally, and pulled it off remarkably. The action sequences alone, especiallyt he parkour sequence and the airport chase–were some of the best seen in recent years, all the moreso for essentially eschewing CGI effects beyond safety cable removal and filming everything live action. (The “Fall of the House in Venice” sequence was technically impressive but pretty formulamatic, at least until Vesper kills herself.)
What’s more impressive, though, are the more subtle details that indicate that the director and producers were aware that they needed make a film, not a cartoon. For instance, notice in the opening teaser, when Bond shoots Drydon there’s a very brief flast, as Dryden falls backward, of a picture with his wife and child; Dryden isn’t a nameless bad guy, he’s a person, and while he may have done something treasonous, his execution is also morally ambiguous. The cross-cut scenes themselves are filmed in two distinct styles; the scenes in the building are very German Expressionalist, with crisp cinematrography of the complex shadows and gleaming chrome and glass, and bizarre, upsetting camera angles. The scenes in the bathroom, however, have a French New Wave look to them, granting an urgent immediacy to them, as Bond struggles to overcome his opponent. It’s also interesting that Bond let’s him live, or at least can’t bring himself to drown him, giving his opponent a chance to grab his gun and allowing Bond to excuse, in his own mind, shooting him in defense. “Made you feel it, did he?” queries Dryden. “Don’t worry; the second is…” bang Bond is now innured and at the same time, trapped: having committed the first killing, he has to go through with the second to get his “Double Oh” status as a state-sponsored executioner, lest he merely be a simpler murderer.
I love the fact that they make such a big deal about Bond’s car; you assume (as you would with any typical Bond film) that being issued this unlikely powerful sports car that he’ll get in some big unlikely chase scene where he’ll have to use some gadgets. And indeed, Bond gives chase in the DB-S…only to roll the thing seven times. The Bond of Casino Royale is flawed and impetuous, which is vastly preferable to the foppish and brazen Bond of the later Connery, Moore, and Brosnan portrayals. The movie also has some great dialogue and interactions, particularly between Bond and M, and Bond and Vesper. “How was your lamb?” “Skewered…one sympathizes.” And the odd structure of the film–where we get this big flourish of an ending as they sail into the Grand Canal, only to have Bond betrayed in the end, was fantastic.
They didn’t go so far as to make a le Carre story out of it–the action scenes and Bond’s eventual invulnerability in the face of ridiculous odds ensure that it doesn’t approach reality–but they did make Bond more of a character, capable of growing and being wounded (physically and otherwise), and far less of the characture he’d become. And both Daniel Craig and Eva Green were far more appealing–and must better thespians–than Brosnan and whatever dim bulb they got to act as his love interest in the past few films.
Regarding Vesper: it’s clear that while she had a certain affection for Bond, she was still committed to carrying out her instructions for the shadowy “Organization” that Mr. White represented in order to secure the release of her Algerian boyfriend, and in any case was in too deep to claim any amnesty. It’s clear that it was she, and (probably) not Mathis, who betrayed Bond (repeatedly, consistantly, and in great emotional depth) and if she hadn’t killed herself she’d have either been found and executed by the Organization or imprisoned by the British. (Remember, they still lost Le Chiffre thanks to her, which was their ultimate target.) That they left the nature and details of the Organization almost completely unstated is one of the more satisfying aspects of the film; like Raymond Benson’s “Union” organization, it gives Bond the overarching nemesis he’s been missing since the virtually fictional Smersh and the totally fictional SPECTRE have disappeared, and also gives a continuing storyline for subsequent films to develop.
Texas Hold 'Em versus Baccarat: Baccarat is purely a game of chance, and a pretty boring one to boot. I can see how the poker scenes might be boring to someone who doesn’t know the game, but they allowed the screenwriters to ramp up the tension in the way that you just oculdn’t do with the mechanics of Bacarrat or Chemin de Fer, which are more akin to Blackjack, and it also permitted Bond to legimately claim that his skill, rather than blind luck, would permit him to win over Le Chiffre. It’s a divergence from the book, but an appropriate one.
In general, even excusing the opening theme (which does grow on you, I swear) it’s a fantastic Bond movie, at least for people who like the character of Bond versus the cartoonish parody of him. A great film, and easily at the top of Bond movies along with From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
Stranger
Nope. In the novel, Ŀe Chiffre was a financial manager for the French Communist Party and was tasked to invest party funds. He chose to buy a string of brothels because his addiction was to the ladies, not the cards. A tough anti-pimping law made the brothels worthless and the baccarat game was a desperate attempt to replace the lost funds.
Le Chiffre was threatening to emasculate Bond when a single SMERSH agent showed up.
What put me off was largely Craig’s cooler-than-thou posture, including his lack of respect for M (who helplessly got all huffy and hostile but posed no serious danger - like a hissing kitten), which doesn’t reconcile with an agent at the beginning of a 00 career. Let him save the world a few times and then he can cop an attitude.
Great analysis, Stranger! Expanding a bit on Vesper, it’s pretty clear that she’d been working the other side of the fence for a long, long time. She’d not only betrayed Bond, but her nation, and done so in the advancement of ideals she personally found repelent. She’d been funneling information and money into a terrorist organization, and therefore had quite a bit of innocent blood on her hands. Her suicide was part expiation for her guilt in those crimes, but also out of simple desperation. No matter what she did, she was dead. Even if MI6 got to her before the Organization did, she’s not going to go to prison. She’s going to be disappeared, “sweated” (tortured) until her captors are convinced she’s revealed everything, and then disposed of in an unmarked grave. This way, at least, she dies on her own terms, and relatively painlessly, at least as compared to an interrogation session at the hands of either of the clandestine organizations she has betrayed.
As for the movie itself? Easily the best Bond film made in my life time. Maybe the best Bond film ever made, period. I’ll have to go back and watch the original Connery Bond films to compare, but Casino Royale was a master work by any standard: a tense, well-paced, well written film that brought a level of believability and humanity to a character that had long since been reduced to a smirk and an empty tux.
BTW, my favorite in-joke from the film was Vesper’s cover identity. What was it again? Patricia Broadchest? That’s not quite in Pussy Galore territory, but it’s damned close.
Miss Stephanie Broadchest, according to IMDb. Not on par with Pussy Galore, no; more like Plenty O’Toole.
The only things I didn’t like about the movie were the anachronisms. I couldn’t reconcile “origin story of a 40±year-old character” with the cool new cars, the hotel surveilance technology, cell phones, the Body World exhibit, the Photoshop reference, etc. I realize they weren’t really supposed to make sense that way, but once I realized it was an origin story, they became distracting.
“I’m Mr. Arlington Beech, professional gambler, and you’re Miss Stephanie Broadchest…” It’s such an inane cover that Bond, as arrogant as he is, is right: he might as well dispose of it in a way that lets Le Chiffre know that he’s aggressive.
My favorite in-joke is the martini he orders after losing is all-in call to Le Chiffre, and isn’t in the mood for nicities:Bond: “Vodka martini.”
Barman: “Shaken or stirred?”
Bond: “Do I look like I give a damn?”
And Le Chiffre’s dismissal of his distinctive character tic as indicating his villany: Le Chiffre: “Weeping blood comes merely from a derangement of the tear duct, my dear General. Nothing sinister.”
And of course, the great dialogue between Bond and Vesper:Bond: “I do hate it when religion comes between us.”
Vesper: “Religion…and a securely locked door. Am I going to have a problem with you, Bond?”
Bond: “No. You’re not my type.”
Vesper: “Smart?”
Bond: “Single.”
And between Bond and M, walking out to the beach where forensic technicians are bagging the body of Bond’s last conquest:M: “I’m putting you in the game. According to Villers, you’re the best player in the service. Believe me, I wish it weren’t the case. Normally, I’d ask if you could remain emotionally detacted, but I don’t think that’s your problem, is it, Bond?”
Bond: [indifferent] “No.”
Vesper’s deconstruction of Bond in the dining car, though, is my favorite scene in the film. She turns the whole mythology of Bond as this moral hero on end:Vesper: “And of course…it makes perfect sense. MI6 looks for maladjusted young men who think nothing of sacrificing others for Queen and country. You know, former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive watches. Rolex?”
Bond: [stoic] “Omega.”
Vesper: “Beautiful.”
This is the Bond film Hitchcock would have made if he were alive today.
Stranger
You did get that the movie was set in the modern day, and not the 1960s, right?
Stranger, you leave me in awe. Well said.
I was prepared to hate this movie as I am not a James Bond fan at all…but I LOVED it! Maybe that’s why…I was actually dreading a forumlaic Bond with a “new guy” playing the character but was pleasantly surprised.
My only complaints:
Too much card playing (Yawn)
Not enough sex!!! 
Also ending was confusing and convoluted, but then aren’t all 007 movies??? I will definitely be in line for the next Daniel Craig 007.