The Broccoli Bond (as opposed to the Fleming Bond) has always struggled to maintain a balance between the *Gun, * and the Tuxedo. For the last 20+ years, the balance has been skewed way over toward the Tuxedo; the Gun had become just another sparkly accessory to reflect a glint from the martini shaker. Casino Royale is the first Broccoli Bond since the Connery era wherein the Gun takes its rightful place at center stage. The Gun-Tuxedo balance has been restored, and for the first time in my life I’m actually looking forward to the next Bond movie.
As one who’s not a big Bond fan, I found this one as stupid as the rest. Sure, it tried to take itself more seriously, but failed horrible, between its completely implausible action sequences and equally unrealistic characters.
At least I can now say that I gave Bond more than a fair chance, but it’s just not for me.
You can rent that? Will Ms. St John mind? 
Oh, there was one.
Le Chiffre’s obvious “tell” was pretty weak. I’d argue that he was doing it deliberately, just to set Bond up, but later on (after he busts Bond) it’s clear that it’s a natural tic, and yes, it’s implausible that such an outstanding poker player (who is very certain he can beat an entire table of other well-funded and presumably world-class players) would display such an easy sign.
Regarding the bank transfer, it might seem implausible that they wouldn’t just transfer the money back into an account that was immediately accessible to the Treasury…but you have to remember, Vesper had set this up all along and was playing Bond, MI6, and the Treasury like a piano. One thing I’m not certain about is who she was actually working for, or rather, what their plan for her was. Clearly, she took her orders from Mr. White (who represented the nameless “Organization”) and Le Chiffre was at best an associate held at arm’s length, but was she cooperating with Le Chiffre (under direct orders of Mr. White or otherwise) or merely communicating things back to him and he was manipulating actions (letting Le Chiffre know about the “tell”, instructing Obanno on where to find Le Chiffre, et cetera)? And what’s the deal with this “French-Algerian boyfriend” about whom we hear but never see? I wonder if he’s not in on the plot as well, having seduced Vesper and his abduction being a ruse to control her. There’s certainly a rich backstory that can provide for a good plot for the sequel and even beyond.
Dude, it’s not John le Carré or Len Deighton. If that’s what you’re looking for, check out The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, or The Ipcress File. Fleming never pretended–despite his own intelligence and special operations background–that his Bond stories were anything like realistic.
Stranger
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn about Fleming. I’m talking about the movies, and as such, this latest one was often heralded as a much more realistic take on Bond, a sentiment I completely disagree with.
Again, I don’t give a rats ass what the source material was, or how closely or loosely is adhered to them. Particularly since not every franchise feels the need to strictly adhere to such guidelines, especially when they’re detrimental to the film, imo of course.
Ee-eeyah! I just had a massive wince factor wondering what would happen if Fleming fans were as gawdawful fanboy loyalists as Tolkein fans…
Why wasn’t Bond carrying the .25 Beretta? He didn’t use the long barreled colt in the pursuit of Vesper, those b*****d movie makers!
:rolleyes:
So, you knew exactly what as going to happen 15 minutes in advance, yet you apparently couldn’t even follow the fairly simple storyline. :dubious:
Maybe you should ask them to make the plot even simpler in the next one. Seriously, if you can’t follow such a straightforward plot, your critique of the movie becomes a little suspect.
Anyway, i’ve always been a bit of a Bond fan, and my wife has never liked Bond movies at all.
And we both loved this film.
Conventions would be held in casinos, of course. Male Fleming fans would show up in tuxedos; female ones in Dior gowns. Anybody who dissed Fleming would be subject to a particularly brutal form of death; after which, to the polite applause of the rest of the crowd, the Bond-wannabe who performed the act would make his way to the bar, and order a Vesper. The convention would then calmly continue. 
Seriously, I just saw the film and quite liked it–it is, as others have said, a return to what Bond should have been over the last number of years and films. There’s not much more I can say, really, but I do want to address the question of “why Hold 'Em and not Baccarat?”
It is entirely possible that Fleming did not know of Hold’ Em. If my memory of the Bond books serves (and I’m going to rely on it, since I’m not going to go dig out my Bond books), Bond refers to Scarne on Cards in a few books. I don’t have that reference, but I do have a 1961 copy of Scarne’s Complete Guide to Gambling, in which Scarne, among other games, describes poker. However, Scarne makes no reference to Texas Hold’Em or any game like it–he sticks to basic Draw and Stud, and indeed says “To most Americans, Draw Poker means Five Card Draw…Stud Poker usually means Five Card Stud…” He goes on to list variations to these, but makes no mention of any poker game involving community cards face up on the table. If Scarne does not mention Hold’Em, it would be reasonable to assume Fleming, who had obviously read Scarne, would not know of it.
Fleming did know his cards at the time he was writing his books, though, and Bond’s knowledge in the books reflects that. The first third of Moonraker (the book) is taken up with a game of contract bridge that is fascinating to any reader who knows how to play bridge. Unfortunately, it seems that few people today play bridge, and those that do don’t play as often as they used to, and so Fleming’s description of the game is often lost on newer or younger readers. Still, given Fleming’s knowledge of the intricacies of bridge, I’m sure that had he known of Hold’Em, he would have used it in one of the books. Perhaps not Casino Royale, since I don’t think European casinos offered poker at the time, but I think he would have used it somewhere.
Regardless, I think Hold’Em was a better choice than Baccarat to put in the recent film. It allows Bond to show his skill, it allows for tension to build, and given the recent rise in popularity of Hold’Em, it is understandable to the audience. I would imagine very few people know Baccarat (I do, but I find it to be pure luck and fairly boring); but many more know, understand, and play Hold’Em these days. Good choice of game in a film that I thoroughly enjoyed.
In these situations, it’s always best to remember that JB is a Hollywood* movie and not a documentary. If the “tell” was a subtle flutter of the left nostril or whatever, how would we, the audience, notice? IMO the producers went for clunky so that most of us could follow along at home.
Isn’t that what most folks are saying about swapping out baccarat for Texas hold 'em?
*Pinewood for the pedants
The hand Bond uses in Moonraker to ultimately defeat the villain Hugo Drax was used by Ely Culbertson to highlight the deficiencies of his own quick trick bidding system. This hand, in turn, Culbertson borrowed from a famous game of whist in which the Duke of Cumberland is thought to have lost a small fortune betting on the South cards. See here for the full deal but add AKQ of spades to the south cards.
Interestingly perhaps, the Duke of Cumberland also has a connection with the baccarat hand which cleans out Le Chiffre in the novel Casino Royale. Bond is dealt a useless pair of queens but draws the nine of diamonds on the turn which enables him to beat Le Chiffre’s eight count. The nine of diamonds is known as the Curse of Scotland. One reason given for this nomenclature is that Cumberland wrote his battle orders for the battle of Culloden on the reverse of the nine of diamonds.