Casino Royale Insane??

BMcG05

PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM




I went to see Casino Royale last night and didnt really understand what was going on!! For a Bond movie this struck me as somewhat bizarre but perhaps someone can fill me in.

1. What happened the CIA/FBI agent playing at the poker game? Wasn't he on his way to pick up La Sheefre after the game? Surely the girl never would have been kidnapped in this case as La Sheefre would have been monitored.

2. Why does the girl kill herself in the end? The money is still floating around in the Venitian waters (although later picked up, stone dry by some other guy at a height)! Is she afraid of prison time or something?? Very strange

3. And finally, the biggest question and absolute flaw in the movie from what i recall is this. At the poker game, the girl stakes Bond the first 10m. We later find out that she was going to steal the money he won to pay a ransom to clear her captured boyfriend. Then WHY OH WHY would she not stake him the further 5m when he loses the original? Surely at this stage, shes screwed and the only worse thing that can happen is that Bond loses the 5. Hell even if he does, the girl cant get in touble really cos she'll say she acted on her best judgement and got it wrong and they'd never have known about her elaborate stealing plan...simple as. Not staking him meant she had to SOMEHOW foresee Bond getting money from elsewhere, play the game, beat La Sheefre with the straight flush, stay alive, redezvous with the bank clerk and be allowed to put in the fake account number with nobody noticing anythin odd.

Please PLEASE fill me in!!!!!!!!

kdevitt

As I see it -

1 - CIA offered Le Chiffre protection if he was going to spill the secrets about who he was working for - M said that was what MI6 were going to do, and Le Chiffre said he was going to be protected by them during the torture scene. So he may have been free to roam while the details were worked out, after all - he knew he was a dead man, so it would have suited him to be brought in.

2 - She kills herself in th ebook too afaik, she obviously thinks she has nothing to live for.

3 - The card game was designed to get the money for the organisation that Le Chiffre was working on behalf of. With Bond out of the game, there was no one else who could win it, the organisation would then get their money. If she gave Bond the extra money to keep playing, he still had a chance of beating Le Chiffre, which she didn't want to happen.

User45701

im scared....

ive seen this movie in the cinema last week and i just realised i don't remember anything but the poker game and the opening parkour scene and the bit where the car flips which was so very very funny

but i don't remember anything about the plot or anything very unusual for me and as far as i remember i enjoyed the movie so why cant i remember it...

anyway does not matter goldeneye was the best bond movie

BMcG05

kdevitt wrote:

3 - The card game was designed to get the money for the organisation that Le Chiffre was working on behalf of. With Bond out of the game, there was no one else who could win it, the organisation would then get their money. If she gave Bond the extra money to keep playing, he still had a chance of beating Le Chiffre, which she didn't want to happen.

Thanks for 1 and 2 but why the elaborate plot for 3?
If Le Chiffre had won the money wouldn't he just keep it for himself? As I see she had to rely on Bond to win, otherwise, if any other player won, which was a 1 in 6 shot, she would lose. Thats why she had the phoney bank account set up so she could withdraw funds. Or was this just a backup incase Le Chiffre didnt win and Bond did? Remeber she did save his life too, which allowed him to get back in the game

LordSutch

User45701 wrote:

im scared....

ive seen this movie in the cinema last week and i just realised i don't remember anything but the poker game and the opening parkour scene and the bit where the car flips which was so very very funny

So you found it very very funny when James Bond's Aston martin flipped over about five times with him in it?
Why was that funny?

I couldnt help thinking about the beautiful new Aston Martin being wrecked (Not so Funny if you like beautiful cars) & it also meant the end of any car chases involving the Aston!

Great Bond Film ~ Daniel Craig Rocks
10/10

kaimera

I assumed she only made a deal wrt money during the torture scene and her not wanting to give the money was unrelated to the last 30 mins

J.R.HARTLEY

BMcG05

1. LeChiffre bolted after the game, fearing for his life, Felix Leiter was not going to move in on him without backup,he was waiting for Le Chiffre to make the approach out of desperation, if you want a mans full cooperation do you:
A. run in a soon as he's in trouble and save the day or
B.let him sweat over it, let him get desperate, make sure he tells you everything

2.Vesper kills herself as she feels responsible for not just betraying james, but also the original Boyfriend that they kidnapped, she was supposed to be making bond lose to save the boyfriend, but she made the deal for the money to save bonds life during the torture scene thereby condeming the boyfriend. secondly i assume it may have something to do with her wanting james to get out of the dangerous situation ASAP, reasoning if she was dead james would leave the sinking elevator cage

3.If LeChiffre won, the organisation got the money back, as LeChiffre wanted the winnings to cover his stockmarket losses that was in fact the organisations money not LeChiffres, he was up to his ass in debt, and all the money he lost wasn't his. when bond won, Vesper as told by M later made the deal to give them the money during the torture scene in return for Bonds life being spared.

User45701

ArthurF wrote:

So you found it very very funny when James Bond's Aston martin flipped over about five times with him in it?
Why was that funny?

I couldnt help thinking about the beautiful new Aston Martin being wrecked (Not so Funny if you like beautiful cars) & it also meant the end of any car chases involving the Aston!

10/10

It was funny cause i heard someone in the audience behind me whisper to the person beside them "i cant wait to see what his new car can do" and then it flipped and it was VERY VERY funny

davyjose

User45701 wrote:

It was funny cause i heard someone in the audience behind me whisper to the person beside them "i cant wait to see what his new car can do" and then it flipped and it was VERY VERY funny

Didn't they see the trailer? You know, the one that kindly informed us that the Aston would be wrecked and Vespar would die? :mad:

User45701

i didn't see the trailer not that i remember but even if i did see the trailer i wouldn't have known it was the same car, i might have known it was the same colour but not the same car, i don't relay know what cars look like or there names or stuff like that

DS

It was an absolutely rubbish plot in fairness. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to know wtf was going on towards the end with about 10 interested parties running around with briefcases.

J.R.HARTLEY

blame Ian Fleming then DS cause he wrote the plot and the book over 50 years ago.

DS

Actually, thanks for reminding me because that explains it perfectly. This is a great example of a film doing an awful job of condensing a complex book plot into a film.

It sounds like it would be an excellent story for a book where you have time to digest and analyse every development, but it was completely unsuitable for a film, and ended up seeming completely rushed and nonsensical. There are certainly very complicated and excellent movie plots around, but it was obviously beyond the skill level of the filmmakers to produce a coherent movie out of the book.

BlitzKrieg

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

blame Ian Fleming then DS cause he wrote the plot and the book over 50 years ago.

actually blame the writers who adapted the book to screen.

The book was not only written 50 years ago but also set during the cold war, there are vital plot elements that can be explained away with 'Soviets' while today we have to adapt it to 'Terrorist' which isnt exactly a exact swap (with soviet you know the line ends with the Kremlin, while terrorist is all over the place.)

They did a shaky job moving the plotline forward, some elements worked (the playing the stock market element.) others didnt (no development on Gettler.)

humanji

DS wrote:

It was an absolutely rubbish plot in fairness. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to know wtf was going on towards the end with about 10 interested parties running around with briefcases.

What was so difficult to understand? They laid it out quite simply, I thought (to the point of having the poler game narrated! :rolleyes: ). But they do explain it all at the end. Plus, you have to bear in mind, it's the first of a two part story.

markk06

The bit that i dont get is how le chiffre lost €101million of those guys money. When he gets the money he rings the investor and wants to short €100m on the airline. Yer man advises against betting against it because it is on the rise. But obviously he assumes it is going to go bankrupt when he blows up the plane. Since the plane doesnt blow up this means he doesnt gain. However if he were to lose that would mean the stock price would have to rise after the foiled attack. In fact since the two ammounts are virtually the same it would have to double in price....

Maybe I am looking in to it too much or maybe i misheard something, either way can someone shed some light on it...

J.R.HARTLEY

i just assumed that he was trying to make back the money he lost by investing in the airline, so when that didn't work, he moved onto the card game
i thought from the way M explained it that he had been hemmoraging the companies money for a long time, that it didn't start during the film but was an older problem.

BopNiblets

That French guy should have narrated the whole movie for you chumps.

Killaqueen!!!

Not all of us concentrate on every single line of the movie. For those of you patronising ba$stards - don't act like it wasn't the clearest plot of them all :P

Now this part may just be me maybe I wasn't paying attention. But who exactly shot Le Sheefre when he was torturing Bond and how come he woke up in a hospital and then in a garden where the traitor guy was (can't remember his name - the French dude). Then two guys came up and zapped the French dude, and Vesper came along and the guy came up with a briefcase and he typed in the password. WTF??

J.R.HARTLEY

The Guy that shot LeChiffre was a senior member of the organistaion he worked for , the smae guy james plugs at the end. he woke up in the hospital because M said at the end that Vesper made a deal during the torture to turn over the money in exchange for bonds life (she was originally going to give it up for the return of her kidnapped boyfriend, but she had fallen for james in the meantime)
how they were found is never explained but i assume vesper was given back her phone or something when the villains leave. he wakes up in hospital and is then drugged so he can rest, then he wakes up in the hospital grounds (i'd imagine they are trying to say some time passed between the hospital and the garden scene, maybe a few days)

DS

This is ridiculous anyway. Bond films aren't supposed to be about the plot. The plot is just a vehicle and used to be pretty much the same every time. Casino Royale is a mess. It's the standard lengthy Bond action sequences plus a crappy poker game, punctuated by rushed and incoherent attempts to move along a bloated plot.

If you're going to have an interesting plot in a Bond film at least make it an integral part of the film and not something that rears its ugly head for a few minutes every half an hour just to piss you off and make you think, which you really shouldn't be doing in a Bond film.

humanji

DS wrote:

This is ridiculous anyway. Bond films aren't supposed to be about the plot. The plot is just a vehicle and used to be pretty much the same every time. Casino Royale is a mess. It's the standard lengthy Bond action sequences plus a crappy poker game, punctuated by rushed and incoherent attempts to move along a bloated plot.

If you're going to have an interesting plot in a Bond film at least make it an integral part of the film and not something that rears its ugly head for a few minutes every half an hour just to piss you off and make you think, which you really shouldn't be doing in a Bond film.

The the card game WAS the integral part of the film. The action sequences were built around them. What you're missing is that this isn't a prequel to Bond. It's a re-imagining (god, I hate that phrase), where they are trying to get back to how tha books really were. In fairness, I see it as a good thing since the films were getting beyond a joke.

wingnut

The biggest question for me is why did he pursue the bomb maker up the crane at the start of the film? Where was he going to go he was up a crane for god sake. I would have waited at the bottom for him - he's got to come down some time!

WallysWorld

wingnut wrote:

The biggest question for met is why did he pursue the bomb maker up the crane at the start of the film? Where was he going to go he was up a crane for god sake. I would have waited at the bottom for him - he's got to come down some time!

Made for a bloody good scene though! I thought it was one of the best bond films up there with goldeneye and goldfinger. I thought it was a brave move to have as the centerpiece of the film a poker game, to make that work you need a tight script and good acting which they pulled off.

daithimac

wingnut wrote:

The biggest question for me is why did he pursue the bomb maker up the crane at the start of the film? Where was he going to go he was up a crane for god sake. I would have waited at the bottom for him - he's got to come down some time!

did he not get off another way than coming down?

I thought it was the best bond movie since sean connery. I think connery may have a fight on his hands for the title of best bond ever over the next few films. nice to see a few of the clecies removed and a more substantive plot. the martini scenes were priceless

Thorbar

If this thread represents an fair sample of cinema patrons than its no wonder movies are getting dumbed down.

DS

If this thread represents an fair sample of cinema patrons than its no wonder movies are getting dumbed down.

Well maybe if you had the intelligence to see the discussion as more than people saying "I didn't get it", we might get somewhere.

J.R.HARTLEY

in fairness you are criticising them for the plot when thats whats in the book, you can't just say ditch the plot we'll come up with a new one, it's an adaptation.

aidan_walsh

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

in fairness you are criticising them for the plot when thats whats in the book, you can't just say ditch the plot we'll come up with a new one, it's an adaptation.

Unheard of and all as it is for Bond movies to use a title without any further allusion to the original story

sham69

I thought it was awful. Craig was quite good and is definitely the only Bond (in my opinion) that I have seen with that viscious streak and someone who could actually hurt you. The storyline was pretty weak and just when things were getting going the movie was over. Granted the opening scene was good and the last 20 minutes or so but that was about it.
I know its all about opinion but I really can't understand people saying its the best bond in ages etc etc. Give me Live and Let die anyday.
Just my opinion.......

DS

in fairness you are criticising them for the plot when thats whats in the book, you can't just say ditch the plot we'll come up with a new one, it's an adaptation.

I was criticising the plot as it was presented in the film. It's not the original plot that is bad, it was the adaptation.