Casino Royale ** INLINE SPOILERS **

[Borodog]

Best Bond film ever. Yes, including Sean Connery.

This is a new start for the franchise; in essence all previous Bond films never existed, ala Highlander II. The only connection is M.

This Bond is badder, more real, more vicious, more feral, more ferocious. Rounder, multidimensional, real depth of characterization. The whole character is reborn, fire forged. Frankly, this Bond makes Connery, Moore, and Brosnan look like the caricatures they were (no need to mention the aberation that was Dalton, or the hapless Lazenby).

Yes. I said it. The best Bond is no longer Sean Connery. It's this blonde guy who's name I can't even remember. Craig Something, or Something Craig.

Some people will complain that the plot was predictable. It was, but even though I knew where I was going, I enjoyed the ride.

There were homage's to the old style of Bond, but they were tongue in cheek; No Pussy Galores or Allotta Faginas, but Bond jokes that Her Majesty's Accountant's covername is Ms. Broadchest. We see the advent of the famous martini as it is simultaneously updated and then skewered ("Vodka martini." "Shaken or stirred, sir?" "Do I look like I give a damn?").

I can't say enough good things about this movie. Some will complain that it went on too long, that the ending was somewhat ad hoc. Both are probably true, but this first installment of a new incarnation of the franchise had a lot of character development to cover, and I don't mind the extra time in the seat.

This is probably a rambling review, but it boils down to: Highly recommended; the best Bond, character and film both, to date.

4.0/5 stars. And honestly, I'm not sure they could have addressed anything that would push it to 5 and still get the job done that they had to do.

PS. The poker was fun, and the opening sequence was dynamite.

[Captain R]

How about a hand analysis of the last hand in the movie? Because I'm a poker junkies, I've been thinking about how the hand went down...

WARNING: Spoiler




















So here's what we know, 4 players --
SB, Japanese guy
BB, Black guy
UTG, Villian
Button, Hero

SB has KQs
BB has 88
Villian has A8o
Bond has 57s

Villian must have open-raised here. But he must have put in a small raise for Bond to call getting some deep implied odds with the deep stacks. I think blinds were 1mil/2mil? Bond has at least 40 mil behind as I recall at the end, and was the chip leader.

So Villian open raises, Bond takes a flyer ala Negreanu in position, SB calls with KQs and BB makes an easy call with 88 hoping to flop big.

Flop is A86, 2 spades. Checked to Villian who makes a decent sized bet. Bond calls with the open-ended straight flush draw, SB calls with the second nut flush draw.

Here's the tricky part. You figure BB must put in a healthy check-raise on the flop, due to all 3 players in the hand and an apparent flush draw on the flop. And then all call?

Would Villian just smooth-call the check-raise because he's afraid of Bond and SB smooth-calling the flop and potentially slowplaying a set? So I assume all just call.

Turn puts 4s out there, making an obvious flush. I could see it getting checked around here, SB possibly afraid Bond has AsXs or is he really slowplaying here? I could see BB checking the obvious flush as well as Villian and Bond (with the immortal nuts).

River is another sticky point. SB goes all-in (fine). BB goes all-in (fine). Why would Villian raise here? If I were Villian, I would just call hoping for an overall from Bond. Or does he "know" Bond has a flush/full house due to his action on the flop. Bond could possibly have 88/66.

What do you guys think?

[Borodog]

<font color="white"> The hands were not the best, but they were not the worst. I was particularly annoyed by the bit where Bond is supposed to think that Scar-eye's min-raise is a bluff, when the pot is offering something like 4:1 on a call. And then why the reraise? If he's on a bluff, he's surely not going to call. Is Scar-eye supposed to be a maniac? Is Bond expecting him to re-reraise all in on a stone bluff? That's the only way the reraise to 2 million makes sense, which means it doesn't. As soon as Scar-eye went all in and Bond called him, I whispered to my wife "Quad jacks." </font>

[Captain R]

<font color="white"> Actually, I think the board was AKKJJ on that hand. I know the plot point was that Bond thought the Villian was bluffing, but if he put the Villian on a K, Bond wins with the higher full house.

I think Bond made a mistake saying that the Villian "raised" the first time he was bluffing, when in fact I believe the Villian just bet when he had the 22. He never "raised" Bond.

The poker was actually decent, I agree overall. For a mainstream movie, it was done mostly right. I couldn't tell if they intentionally had Bond sloppily push all-in everytime he did it or what. That seemed kind of un-Bondlike and also is generally poor etiquette. But then, I guess the point of the movie was that Bond was kind of still rough around the edges.</font>

[Borodog]

<font color="white">The whole premise was that Bond believed he was bluffing because of the tell. Kings full is not a bluff. </font>

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
No Pussy Galores or Allotta Faginas, but Bond jokes that Her Majesty's Accountant's covername is Ms. Broadchest. We see the advent of the famous martini as it is simultaneously updated and then skewered ("Vodka martini." "Shaken or stirred, sir?" "Do I look like I give a damn?").

[/ QUOTE ]

Its been years since Ive read a Bond book, but I think Ian Flemming included those outrageous names later in the series. Also if I remember correctly Bond always drank his martinis STIRRED, not shaken. Nobody drank shaken martinis in the 60's, it was 100% stirred, the way gentlemen prefer it. The shaken line was a movie addition.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Dominic]

Fantastic movie. I'm not sure if it's really as good as I think it is, or just that I went in with lowered expectations as I do with any movie that's just supposed to be "entertainment."

Either way, this is the darkest, most real Bond ever. Daniel Craig embues the character with such a steely-eyed masculinity, mixed with an ambiguous and well-hidden remorse for his actions - and why he's able to do the things he does - that makes his Bond the most well-rounded and human Bond yet.

The supporting cast is equally compelling, especially Eva Greene as a woman who is James Bonds' equal, and not merely a plaything between the covers.

And Judi Densch does more with less screen time than any actor alive. She's amazing.

The poker scenes, while ludicrous, were still fun to watch.

But what was so enjoyable about this film was how surprising it was, both in plot turns and in character building. I love how the writer's threw in classic Bond references like his martini, his car and others but with a modern, realistic twist.

And my god, how brutal and dark was this film at times? Bond goes through a torture scene that will have every man crossing his legs and wincing. Horrible.

Even though I saw the ending double-cross coming, it was still refreshingly powerful to see the origins of James Bond's emotionless resolve after being both betrayed and losing someone he loves.

And there's something so perfect about the scene - I won't ruin it for you - where Craig gets to utter those famous three words for the first time: "Bond. James Bond."

Terrific movie. Not only one of the best films of the year, but THE best Bond film ever. And yes, I'm serious.

(cross-posted from OOT 'cause I'm special)

[kitaristi0]

I agree with everyone saying it was great. Definitely the best Bond movie I've seen. After watching Pierce Brosnan fiddle about with his fancy gadgets and nice cars this new guy was a welcome change. I may have missed it but I don't think there was a 'Q' character in this one at all (Q is the one with the gadgets, yes?).

[riverboatking]

[ QUOTE ]
Villian must have open-raised here. but he must have put in a small raise for bond to call getting some deep implied odds with the deep stacks. . I think blinds were 1mil/2mil? Bond has at least 40 mil behind as I recall at the end, and was the chip leader.


[/ QUOTE ]

not to be a nit but if the blinds were 1/2mil and bond had ~40mil then calling any raise with 57s is a real bad play.

you don't have implied odds when playing 20BB deep, especally when you are the biggest stack.

[kitaristi0]

RayT,

I'm pretty sure Villain had A6o not A8o. Also everyone checking the turn there was quite lol. I think the Japanese guy played it the worst by checking the turn when he made his flush and then shoving when the board pairs on the river. And from the way he was smiling when the cards were showndown you could tell that he actually thought his hand was good. Oops.