Follow TV Tropes


Headscratchers / Casino Royale (2006)

Go To

    open/close all folders 

    License To Kill 
  • How did Bond so quickly go from an agent with "no kills", as he is described in the Action Prologue, to the ruthlessly effective- we might even say "brutally" effective- killer he is only a little later? In real life, killing just two men doesn't transform most people that completely- and Bond clearly has experience doing what he does. It is almost inconceivable that he has never killed anyone before. Also, in Skyfall, we see that field agents like Eve are ordered to shoot people in the line of duty- and if she had killed Patrice, it would not have implied that she was halfway to "00" status herself. So, what exactly does the "License To Kill" or "00" status mean?
    • "00" agents in this mythology must be the ones who carry out assassinations for MI-6, as opposed to killing in self-defense or combat operations (obviously, you couldn't forbid a non-"00" to kill an enemy that was trying to kill him!). That must be the meaning of "kills" in the prologue; premeditated, targeted assassinations. It would also account for some of the disparities in Skyfall, where Bond is portrayed as a long-service agent, only 2 films after Casino Royale. So, Bond was already an experienced field operative before the events of the film, and had killed enemies in combat or self-defense, "in the rough and tumble of it" as it were; he just hadn't been sent on an assassination contract yet. It was his long experience that qualified him to be sent on an assassination- 'M' would hardly send a rookie, would she? And once you're a "00", with a license to kill, maybe you get to decide who needs to be assassinated on your own and tell 'M' about it afterwards? Which would be why MI-6 is so careful about promoting "00"s in the first place- because, as we see with Bond, once they have a license to kill, they may use it even when you don't want them to.

  • Yes, he's ex-SBS. You don't get that far without killing people in the regular British Military, let alone MI6. However in SBS they might have to do targeted assassinations... how this fits in with your theory I don't know.
    • Your point is well taken. But the Special Boat Squadron works in teams. A 00 agent works alone. I think that's the essential difference.
  • I assumed that "two kills" meant assassinations (i.e. the people he may have killed in the SBS or in self defence on prior missions don't count) and that 00 agents aren't automatically promoted for getting two kills, rather they're the "best of the best" who are called in for the most important missions and given a lot more leeway to act on their own without being babysat.
    • Pretty much this. To qualify as a professional assassin, Bond has to demonstrate that he can actually assassinate someone — which is different from killing someone in the field of combat or in self-defence.
      • Also note how the assassination was carried out. It was face to face. It wasn't long distance. That may be part of it as well.
    Bond and the media 
  • How does the news media know who Bond is and who he works for? Aren't they supposed to be top secret?
    • I thought Quantum leaked that information. Considering the depth of their contacts, they certainly knew who he was.
      • I dunno about this. At this point, Bond had already gotten the info he needed, and thus Quantum had little motivation to possibly tip their hand (pun unintended) by putting him in the doghouse for a few days. If M hadn't had her head so far up her ass during this movie, she would have realized that MI6 had at least one well-placed mole leaking info and done some plugging.
      • He was probably ID'ed by the embassy or its government, who would have been suitably pissed enough to seriously investigate . They or the native government may have also been aware that MI6 were conducting a sting operation on that guy (esp. if they caught Bond's partner), and someone leaked it. The media don't actually know who Bond is; they just know he's a British agent.
    "Half the people at the table are still looking at you" 
  • Are we supposed to believe that experienced high-stakes Texas Hold 'Em players would be so easily distracted in the beginning of the game by a single girl?
    • When that girl is the stunning Eva Green in a jaw-dropping dress, the answer is a resounding yes.
    • Further justified (somewhat) because at the time she enters, only Bond and Le Chiffre are playing, everyone else having folded. Yes, pros would be watching the last two play to observe their strategies, but it is understandable that they scope out Vesper as well.
    The decision to recruit Vesper Lynd 
  • I really don't get why MI6, after deciding to put Vesper in control of the money used in the game, didn't do a background check on her. If they had, they would have noticed that her boyfriend had been kidnapped and was being held for ransom. They probably would have realized that she was a weak link (as that fact could be used to manipulate her) and had her removed in favor of someone else. M does a Hand Wave by lamely stating that they sometimes get so focused on their enemies they forget to check on their friends. That's a weaksauce excuse and she knows it. M and MI6 really do not come out of this movie looking too smart.
    • MI6 didn't decide. The Treasury put her in as their representative.
    • It's explained in Quantum of Solace: her boyfriend had not actually been kidnapped; he'd been a Quantum agent all along. The background check would have revealed nothing as nobody except Vesper knew this 'kidnapping' even existed.
      • Plus, Quantum of Solace shows the bad guys are very, very good at covering their tracks and infiltrating MI6. For the record, M's own bodyguard turns out to have been a Quantum mole.
    Vesper's plan 
  • So...the plan was for Vesper to be in charge of all of that money...w/o any oversight? Really?
    • She is the oversight. The one they don't want in charge of it is Bond, given his inexperience and the mess he'd got them into. Plus, she represents the treasury, who is funding the operation, and if she is their representative they aren't very impressed with the idea.
    Bond's pursuit of Mollaka 
  • Bond walks into the embassy and kidnaps the bomber at gunpoint. Couldn't he have just explained to the diplomat he was British intelligence, why he was there and escorted the bomber out? That would've avoided a major diplomatic incident.
    • No. Because embassies don't work that way. In the most amicable case, it'd take hours, days, possibly weeks of red tape because the Embassy is treated as property of the other country, and if it's a non-extradition country, then Bond is out of luck entirely. In the least amicable case, the diplomat won't even listen to Bond and have the bomber shipped back home never to be seen again.
    • Countries also don't just file complaints when a foreigner blows up an embassy, firing in the direction of that country's ambassador. It's called terrorism, and no country, no matter how small, would refrain from having the UN censuring the UK's ass, and there's no option for the UK to claim Bond wasn't employed by them.
    Bond's gambling skills 
  • How does MI6 even know that Bond is the best baccarat/Texas hold'em player in the service? Do they have try outs? Is that part of their training?
    • I imagine they just do it for fun, and the higher-ups at MI6 asked around when gambling became part of the mission.
    • Why wouldn't it be part of their training? Poker requires a lot of skills that a secret agent finds invaluable: Reading people, controlling your own emotions, telling lies with body language, evaluating risks, and it's a common pastime for the sort of high-class playboy villains that Bond seems to always encounter.
    • As a member of the secret service, Bond would face regular vetting, at least part of which would focus on his finances. So there'd be a lot of a conversations along the lines of "Does Bond gamble a lot? Yes, but don't worry about his finances, he always wins".
    • In the book version, it's because Bond had had a prior mission that required him to work in a casino, so the Service had actually paid to send Bond for lessons with a professional card-sharp. Between that and the part where regular high-stakes gambling (that he doesn't go broke doing) would show up on his background checks, its entirely explainable.
      • Also- as seen in the novel Moonraker - M was not averse to some games of chance in his spare time too...
    • Hyperbole. MI-6 have probably not conducted exhaustive contests and testing to verify that Bond is literally the best card shark in the service; they just happen to know he's bloody good at playing poker, and are using a bit of exaggeration for the purposes of simplification / soft-soaping.
    Death of Dimitrios 
  • Bond kills Dimitrios in the middle of a crowded museum, puts the body down, gives it a friendly pat on the cheek, and then walks out right in front of security. Nobody has any reaction to any of this?
    • He kills him very quietly. Neither of them make a noise, and there doesn't seem to be any excess blood. That was rather the point of the exchange, that both of them had good reason to keep things quiet and out of the open.
    • Yeah, it's basically the same as that scene in Commando where John Matrix snaps that guy's neck while they're in a crowded plane. The guy is dead so quickly and quietly that even if anyone saw it they don't know what happened. They just assume the dead guy is napping, and by the time anyone figures out he's dead and Matrix / Bond is already miles away.
    M's real name 
  • Why would M threaten Bond when it appears that he is going to say her real name out loud? Even if someone eavesdrops, there wouldn't be much point in hiding it given the content of the rest of their conversation. Could it be that it is a really embarrassing one?
    • I think she was just getting annoyed with Bond, and dropped that line to shut him up and let him know that flaunting his ability to break the rules won't be tolerated.
    • I think it was mainly to make clear her point that it was classified. She instantly shut him up, so he knew how thin the line he was treading.
    • *puts on Doyle hat* It's, I think, also a nod to the audience that M's name will never be revealed in the canon. Much like how 'Western Animation/'The Simpsons'' keeps reminding us that we still don't know where Springfield is.
    • I had interpreted as her being too angry with Bond over what happened in Madagascar to even care what he had to say at that moment and just wanted him to shut up.
    • M is the head of the entire British Intelligence service. Everything about her is probably classified. If an eavesdropper heard the rest of their conversation he would only have information about the specific operation they were talking about. If an eavesdropper heard M's real name then they would be able to find her home, her family, her friends, etc.
      • The real name of the head of MI6, the actual SIS is not just public record, it's on their web page. The real "C" is Sir John Sawers []
      • That's just what they want us to think.
      • That's the real MI6 though. In the Bond-verse, it would not be out of character in the least for MI6 to have a public face and a private leader.
      • I always assumed it was basically a joke, that her name was so ugly and embarrassing that she didn't want anyone talking about it.
      • In Skyfall it's revealed (in a Freeze-Frame Bonus) that her real name's... Olivia Mansfield.
      • Call me wacky, but I thought it was going to be sob story about how she was a Moneypenny style worker till her kids got killed by a bad guy spy. So she worked her way up to the top to make sure bad guy spies paid for her babies demise. Which lends a certain Mama bear aspect to it. Bond shuts up because he knows dragging up that particular story is a REALLY stupid idea.
    • Um, Bond isn't supposed to know her name, right? Just like how he's not supposed to show up in her apartment. So she prevents him from saying the name because she's annoyed that he knows the name at all. She's annoyed that he's breaking rules and learning secrets.
      • That's it exactly. Also, it's irritating that he's treating her as an intimate friend instead of his superior.
      • The exchange happened inside her apartment, which he successfully broke into, and which was also classified. After he leaves she also notices he used her computer.
    • As for the threat itself, it is not meant entirely seriously. M is almost certainly not going to have Bond assassinated simply for saying her name. It's just a bit of hyperbole to underscore the point that M is seriously pissed off with Bond at that particular moment and continuing on with that particular line of mildly insubordinate irreverence is almost certainly not going to end well for him.
  • The scene simply doesn't make sense. M is nothing more than the title of the head of MI 6, the Bond universe's equivalent of the real-life C; it's just barely conceivable that Bond doesn't realise that...but it puts his intelligence and awareness on about the level of a child who thinks their dad's name is "Dad". Moreover, M's identity has never been treated as a secret before or since. In fact, every actor to play Bond has had their name revealed: in The Spy Who Loved Me Bernard Lee's M is addressed as "Miles", indicating that he has the same name as Fleming's M, Sir Miles Messervy; depending on which theory you prefer, Robert Brown either continued to play Miles Messervy, or was his previous character, Admiral Hargreaves, in a new position; Dame Judi Dench played Barbara Mawdsley in the Brosnan era and Olivia Mansfield in the Craig era, and Film/Skyfall actually depicts public servant Gareth Mallory taking over as M. The entire process of Mallory becoming M would be impossible if the identity of M were a secret (past films and books have also hinted or outright depicted that M is, at least partially, a political position/appointment).
    Poker game finale 
  • In the final hand of the poker game, James goes all in, along with Le Chiffre and two others. Yet they clearly are all holding different amounts of chips. Bond takes everyone out in a single hand, which means he was the chip leader, which in turn means he literally can't go all in - he can only match the next-highest better. Furthermore, everything is put into the main pot. There should be two side-pots since you can only win an amount from each better equal to what you put in. This is obviously Artistic License since it would be more complicated to explain all that than to just have everyone go all in (not to mention Rule of Drama since it's more suspenseful if we think Bond might lose everything), but it makes any actual poker players scratch their heads.
    • Don't assume that every "actual" poker player knows the rules for Texas Hold'Em; or that they would know how it is played in a casino, or how the betting in a casino tourney works. That's no more valid than assuming that every Texas Hold'Em fan knows the rules of Chicago Hi-Lo. Breaking the narrative at that point for a dissertation on betting would not have been an improvement.
    • After the betting at the flop, Bond had $40.5 million, Le Chiffre had $39.5 million (the other two had $6 million and $5 million, and there was $24 million in the pot). If Le Chiffre won, Bond would be left with a meagre $1 million against Le Chiffre's $114 million; just losing one more big blind and he would then be out. So it was an important hand for Bond.
    • But you're right, the filmmakers left out the side-pots; probably so that they wouldn't have to explain that to the movie audience (and possibly because Bond was so rude to splash the pot). So instead let's say the croupier was keeping track of the side-pots in his head (after all, if Mathis could keep track of all the bets from where he stood, then surely the croupier could).
    Attempted murder of Valenka 
  • Why did Valenka stay with Le Chiffre after she very nearly had her arm cut off without a word of protest from him? Later in the casino, she not only helps him by poisoning Bond but doesn't even seem mad or cold toward him at any point. Hell, in that brief scene after he takes Bond for 10 million she seemed downright affectionate.
    • She already knew what kind of man Le Chiffre was before that, and is probably that kind of person herself. She and Le Chiffre are lovers, but that doesn't mean they are in love. She sticks around for the lifestyle, while he just wants a sexy bimbo to hang around him. They make it work.
      • Yeah, but why stick with Le Chiffre when there are plenty of rich men she could be with and live a considerably less dangerous lifestyle?
      • Because in the Bond 'verse All Girls Want Bad Boys. Dimitrios's wife expressly admits to it.
      • Also, he might have her killed for it. Even if he doesn't really love her and isn't bothered about being dumped, she knows too much to be allowed to live. And even if he decides not to kill her, he has far too many dangerous clients and business partners who might decide to kill her as a message for Le Chiffre for the same reason anyway. Its the trap of the full-time criminal lifestyle- not only is it pretty addictive, is also loaded with paranoia and very real danger. Lots of people will never let you leave.
    • It ties in with the film's general theme of being able to read people: tells during poker, a scene taking place in a museum showcasing various states of the human body, Bond being able to obtain various random secrets about M with everyone being totally mystified as to how he does this, Vesper completely succeeding in fooling everyone about her allegiances....the point is, Le Chiffre knew, probably from their body language, that they weren't going to cut off her arm (because killing her would make Le Chiffre less capable of winning back their lost money), which is why he didn't even react. If this conversation had arisen after their attackers left, it would've taken him seconds to explain that to her, and when you consider how often Valenka watches him own people at poker, it's entirely plausible she'd have no problem with it in hindsight. Probably the only reason Le Chiffre even looks distressed is because his irate client showed up in his room demanding his money.
    • I wouldn't overinterpret it. Valenka might have low self-esteem, or maybe she was written as a one-dimensional character without much development or motivation.
    • She may also be, to put it crudely, a prostitute. Perhaps she doesn't particularly want to be around him, but Le Chiffre pays her well enough to swallow her qualms about the situation.
    • Her position as his lover/business associate means she's in just as much danger from Quantum or anyone else now pissed off at Le Chiffre. Walking away means she has no protection, but helping him win gets the bad guys off her back too.

    "You Know My Name" 
  • All right, this has been bugging me for ages now. What the ruddy hell does the song have to do with James Bond? What angels has he seen, who is he replacing, and what merciless eyes has he deceived?
    • Don't know about those bits, but the "the coldest blood runs through my veins" is referencing the fact that 007 is an extremely cold-blooded Anti-Hero and "You Know My Name" is stating that James Bond really needs no introduction.
      • If "James Bond needs no introduction", why is there a reboot in the first place?
    • The "replacing" bit is obvious: Daniel Craig is replacing Pierce Brosnan.
      • While there's never much of a point in analyzing the lyrics of a Bond movie opening theme, the lyrics of "You Know My Name" seem to be about Bond's loss of humanity: "you might find out you're giving up something important by killing other people," "angels can fall from grace and you are definitely no angel," etc.
      • Oh. Yes, yes, yes. If we assume the singer to be some personification of moral decay, it makes perfect sense. Even the Merciless Eyes I've Deceived (the potholes illustrating why I've asked every James Bond fan I know) could be interpreted as the rather hostile viewpoint of society at large. Thanks a lot!
      • 'Angels falling from a height' would also seem to refer to Vesper, who Bond started out believing was beautiful and pure, and who definitely fell from grace.
      • The song makes the most sense if you imagine it is being sung by Bond to Vesper. He's describing her induction into the world of espionage from her comfortable world in the Treasury. "Arm yourself because no one else here will save you": Your reliance on others to protect you (the police, the army, the government) is pointless now, because the people we fight are ruthless beyond measure. "The odds will betray you": Vesper's death. "And I will replace you": By the next movie, you'll only be a memory, and I'll have a new Bond Girl.
      • A fairly persistent memory, given that he drank 8 Vespers on the plane in Quantum of Solace.
      • He could also be warning future Bond girls of the same thing.
      • It makes just as much sense if you think of it as being from M to Bond. Basically: "despite the tux and gadgets and flashy cars, you're just another grunt soldier I'm sending into the breach. One day your luck will run out and you will die, and I'll just send another soldier in without missing a beat or shedding a tear."
      • I always assumed the 'Angels falling' line was a reference to the ending of Casino Royale (1967).
      • Here's an extra-pretentious theory: the song is being sung by Bond (the character, the abstract concept) to Daniel Craig the actor. Basically: you're not the first to play me, you won't be the last, and this job's broken stronger men/actors than you. The "prize" is the instant fame and fortune that comes with being a successful Bond; "death", the Never Live It Down that comes from a Moonraker or Die Another Day.

    Magic defibrillator 
  • Why were the wires on Bond's defibrillator so lightly attached to the parts that they could fall out so easily? I know it was meant to be dramatic (Oh no! Bond's last hope has failed!), but that seems to be a major design flaw on a vital piece of equipment. What with every other piece of equipment in the film (not to mention the franchise) working perfectly, it seems jarring that this one should be poorly made.
    • Maybe they were yanked out by a spy. Those agents would know what to look for and where to look thanks to MI6 moles.
      • Which would be the shoddiest assassination attempt ever made in a Bond film.
    • Medical equipment is generally designed so that the parts that actually touch skin are easily detachable, disposable, and replaceable — because you want to swap the leads out every time you use the machine on someone else, so there's no risk of infection. It's the same reason the nurse changes the plastic cover on the thermometer probe right before she sticks it in your ear, and then ditches said probe cover immediately afterward.
    Leiter after the tournament 
  • What DID happen to Felix Leiter stepping in to take out Le Chiffre? I understand that Mathis might have done something, but as of Quantum of Solace, he's innocent. Felix isn't dead either, as per Quantum of Solace. What happened?
    • Le Chiffre died pretty much the same night the poker tournament ended - I've just thought that Felix and the CIA were too slow to act before Quantum got to him first.
    • Bond tells Vesper during their dinner that the CIA was planning to pick him up in the morning. Presumably, Leiter put up someone to watch guard of him until then, and then perhaps either Le Chiffre killed them directly or Valenka poisoned them and so he escaped.
    Death of Vesper Lynd 
  • Excuse my ignorance, but why did Vesper kill herself exactly? James did kill all the thugs and the coast was clear. To avoid prison/mend her guilt? Couldn't she have given some valuable information in terms of Quantum at least?
    • Guilt of betraying Bond which has probably been festering since he nearly got his man-parts obliterated trying to save her, possible knowledge of her boyfriend's death or true allegiance to Quantum, and thus making said betrayal entirely pointless, pick whichever suits your fancy. And no, with an organization as elaborate and secretive as Quantum I doubt she'd have much information of use.
    • Also probably the knowledge that Quantum will never stop hunting her and would definitely kill Bond to get to her, and that his MI6 training and contacts are small potatoes compared to their whole organization. She's trying to save both of them that suffering, in addition to her guilt.
    • There was a way out that Vesper could've considered. She could've asked Bond to take her to M and ask for M's protection. Of course, M would probably only be inclined to offer some sort of amnesty to Vesper if she and Bond brought a bargaining chip along, which would be Mr. White. Of course, since Vesper betrayed the Crown, there would be consequences from the British government for what happened.
    Le Chiffre hosting a poker tournament 
  • Is it really a smart idea to challenge Le Chiffre at a poker's tournament just to scare him into going to MI6 for help? He was already out of money and desperate before the tournament and they knew where he was. Why risk him getting all that money back on a game reliant on chance? Yes, Bond is a good poker player but Le Chiffre is a mathematical genius.
    • Le Chiffre is the one HOSTING the game, MI6 isn't challenging them to a game. Regardless of whether Bond played or not, the tournament was going to take place - and then Le Chiffre would be heavily favored to win, and wouldn't be in trouble anymore.
      • Yes, the tournament will take place whether Bond participates or not. However, nobody in MI6 seems to imagine that they could just interrupt the tournament. We all know where it's happening, right? So call up a bunch of SWAT teams and get them to storm the place. They can arrest Le Chiffre and take him into custody, and there's no chance at all that he'll win his money back because there won't be any tournament. That's what they should have thought of.
      • That's really not how international operations work—you can't really send a team of armed personnel to break up something like that without getting the country's cooperation, and Le Chiffre had the local authorities there in his pocket. Besides, that wouldn't get them a deal with Le Chiffre anyway. The idea was to make him lose the money so that he would have to seek asylum with a government agency like MI6 or the CIA. If they just wanted him grabbed, they could have done it—what they wanted was to put him in a position where he'd need to cooperate and give them information about the terrorist organizations he has provided banking services to, believing that that's the only way he'll be able to stay alive.
      • Why not just arrest Le Chiffre, and threaten to put him in a normal prison, where his former clients can easily pay someone to shank him, if he doesn't cooperate? There really isn't that much guarantee that he'll go to a government broke, as a man like him has to have contingency plans to disappear in a situation like this.
      • But Bond's agreement with Leiter is to be bankrolled by the CIA back into the tournament (and MI6 can keep the winnings), in exchange for the CIA being able to arrest him when he loses. Somehow though, he escapes and "kidnaps" Vesper to try to steal the money back from Bond. This in itself is worthy of it's own headscratcher... watch this space.

    Le Chiffre and Mathis 
  • Why does Le Chiffre lie about Mathis working for him ?
    • Just so he could further mess with Bond's head? (Proving that Bond Villan Monologues could also be lies) Although...if Mathis is innocent all along, who told Le Chiffre about where to find the implanted Microchip?
    • Because he uses Vesper as taunt-fodder so he needs Bond to still care about her.
    • A common espionage tactic for interrogation or to turn an agent is isolation: essentially, the subject has to feel like they are completely cut off, alone, and without any possible recourse for assistance. By making it seem like Mathis was working with Le Chiffre, he was basically telling Bond that his government did not know where he was, his only other asset in the area was actively helping the opposition, and that was all there was to it: Bond's only options at that point (to protect himself and, more importantly, Vesper) were to flip or die. Le Chiffre was basically setting up a sadistic choice for Bond that should (logically) make giving him the password to the bank account the best decision possible.
    Le Chiffre's decision to host the tournament 
  • It seems foolish for Le Chiffre to attempt to recover his monetary losses through a game of chance. Even if he is a seasoned card player, it seems far too rash for him to risk his entire fortune (and life) when other more reliable means of recovering his investments exist. He certainly didn't earn his wealth and power by being stupid, and the Texas Hold'Em game seemed to be a very stupid move. So what gives?
    • What other means are available to him? I was under the impression that he had to raise $100 million fast. How's he supposed to manage that? It's not like he can just invest in a bunch of well-performing stocks and then wait around for 10 years.
    • Consider this: Le Chiffre lost $101.2 million of someone else's money by betting against the stock market, and lost the money in one fell swoop. He needed to replace the money as quickly as he lost it, or he's going to be tortured to death by some very angry clients. He's a mathematical genius. for him, a poker game is the most logical way to get the money back. It's either that or orchestrating a series of big bank heists that gain the attention of numerous police and espionage agencies.
    What if.... 
  • What would happen if neither Bond nor Le Chiffre had won? I don't think any of the other players were Quantum members.
    • Threats, blackmail, and murder until Quantum got the money.
    • There is a Fan Theory that everyone at the table was actually undercover agents working for various foreign governments, though it isn't really based on anything. Certainly if Felix Leiter won things would have went the way they were supposed to, albeit for the CIA rather than MI6.
    Le Chiffre and 9/ 11 
  • M makes a remark about how after 9/11, investigations found a shorting of airline stocks, so when they bottomed out on 9/12, Le Chiffre made a fortune. My question is: what exactly would Le Chiffre's role in 9/11 have been in the Bondverse? Did he conspire with Al-Qaeda to carry out the attacks? Did he just profiteer off them? Or was it something else?
    • She never said it was Le Chiffre. It could have been him, or it could have been someone else like him. In fact she is referencing an actual alleged case- there were indeed accusations / speculations that bin Laden himself or someone else had somehow profited off of 9/11 in the way M is alleging, though page 4 of the 9/11 commission report into terrorist financing dismisses this claim. Nonetheless, its another example of the writers basing elements on the story on (purported) Real Life events.
    • Possible that Al Qaeda or another person who knew 9/11 was about to happen hired Le Chiffre to hit the airline stocks.
    Bond throwing Mollaka before shooting the gas tanks 
  • Why does Bond let go of Mollaka before shooting the gas tanks? Why didn't he just shoot the gas tanks?
    • Distraction. At that point Bond has realized he has two options: 1. Surrender himself and his hostage. 2. Do absolutely anything else and be immediately shredded by automatic gunfire. So Bond decides to cut his losses while taking a third option. First, he visibly disarms himself (ejecting the magazine, then dropping the weapon) then pushes his hostage away. This relaxed the guards and drew their attention away from him. The human eye is attracted to motion after all. This allowed him to draw the other weapon they did not suspect and make his escape.
    Bond versus three poker novices on the final hand of the tournament 
I realize James Bond has to win because he's James Bond, but why are the other three players on the final hand incompetent poker players? All three of them play the hand extremely poorly, and probably could have pushed Bond out of the hand before he hit his straight flush if they had played it right. Let's break the hand down turn-by-turn, with some assumptions made about the first part of the hand that we don't get to see.

- One shot of the table as the hand is being dealt shows Le Chiffre with the dealer chip. This makes Bond the small blind (.5m) and the asian guy the big blind (1m). This means the black guy should be acting first on each round of betting, since he's to the left of the BB. Of course, we see Bond acting first after the turn and river, so that's a strike against the dealer for seemingly not knowing the rules of the game. Based off of the actual order of operations we see at the table, Le Chiffre would have the big blind (1m) and black guy the small blind (.5m). Let's go with the latter assumption for a moment since it works with what we actually see in the hand.

- Bond is the chip leader with 46.5 million in chips. Le Chiffre is second with 45.5 million. Asian guy is third with 12 million. Black guy is the short stack with 11 million.

- Bond acts first after being dealt 5s and 7s. Four players left and Bond is on a flush draw (6.4% odds) and straight draw (7.3% odds), as well as a pipe dream of getting the nuts with a straight flush (0.15% odds). For him to stick around in this hand he obviously can't be thinking about anything beyond those three possibilities, as any pairs he could make would be weak. His odds of winning this hand, based only on what he can see, are about 22.1%. He limps in. I'd personally have folded but it's not a terrible play, just not a safe one.

- Asian guy acts next with Ks and Qs. Any pairs he ends up making with the board would be strong and he'd have a good chance of ending up with a top pair, so the hand might be worth staying in just for that. Throw in the straight (4.7% odds) and the flush (6.5% odds) and his odds of winning the hand at this point based only on his two cards are about 37.2%. With four players, staying in makes sense, as does limping as he may as well see the flop before committing. Fine.

- Black guy acts next with 8h and 8c. Pocket pair of medium strength, decent chance of a three of a kind (11.7% odds) and a full house (8.6%). Odds of winning the hand are about 37.3% from his perspective. As the short-stack, it's arguable that he should go all-in now, but making a half-priced limp is also a sensible move. Good.

- Le Chiffre acts next with Ac and 6h. Checking is a no-brainer, which he does. Having an ace with four players left is valuable on it's own but the hand doesn't have a ton of value otherwise, so makes sense. Current odds of winning without knowing what anyone else has sits at 25.6%.

- Flop hits. Ah 8s 6s.

- Bond is up, and he's on a very strong draw now. There's a straight (19.1% odds) and a flush (26.6% odds) very well within reach, and the straight flush (8.5%) may end up being the nuts. Odds of winning the hand for Bond are now 49.4%. Of course, his hand isn't made yet and may very well end up being worthless, so he'd likely check. Good.

- Asian guy next, looking good on a flush draw (35% odds) that will be K high at the very minimum. With an ace on the board, one K or Q showing up no longer would be nearly as helpful (though one of each or two of one would obviously make his hand as well), so he's mostly drawing on the flush. Hand odds from his seat on the table sits at 45.66%. Let's say he checks. Good.

- Black guy now. His hand has been made with the 8s showing up on the flop. He now has three of a kind, and as of this moment, he knows the only hand that would have him beat would be pocket aces. Nobody bet preflop so it's fairly safe to guess nobody has pocket aces, particularly after Bond and asian guy checked after the ace showed up. Right now he has a 81.6% chance of winning the hand, as far as he knows. He does have 29.1% odds of getting a full house (although the value of this is somewhat tempered by the fact that him getting a full house would also pair the board), as well as 4.3% odds of the 8d giving him four of a kind, but those are the only three options for him now. So, we know that someone at some point bet 5m before the turn, and this is the most logical choice for such a bet to happen. The problem is, black guy is the short stack, his hand has already been made, and he's very likely the strongest hand at this very moment. Given all this, he really should be going all-in now, putting a maximum amount of pressure on everyone else to get out of the hand while he's ahead. The last thing he wants is to let someone else to catch. By going all-in, he'd be showing pocket aces, pocket eights, or an A8. I highly doubt Bond would be willing to try to draw against a made hand, and asian guy would likely fold as well. Even Le Chiffre would probably have to pull out with top and bottom pair, as black guy would be showing such a strong hand. By only betting half his chips he gives everyone a reason to stay in, and the other players end up catching because of it. Bad move #1.

- Le Chiffre has made his two-pair, top-and-bottom. He has a 16.6% chance of getting a full house with an ace or six showing up. Odds of winning the hand for him sit at 70.7%, in his mind. Black guy showed just enough weakness by only betting 5m that I think it makes sense to call, I think 10m convinces Le Chiffre to sit the hand out. It's also arguable that Le Chiffre should raise if he believes he has the best hand, but there's enough ambiguity in black guy's raise that makes me think calling is fair.

- Bond now. It's fair to assume that he's now drawing against a made hand (although the strength of that made hand is questionable). Black guy is probably pot-committed now so trying to raise him out of the hand doesn't make a ton of sense, so it's either fold or call. Bond is the chip leader and probably sees a chance to practically knock one player out of the game, so I think calling is acceptable.

- Asian guy. He probably gets the sense that this is his chance to get back into the game given he sits at a very distant third in chips, and probably doesn't want to give up on his flush as it might be his last chance before he bleeds out. I suspect that an all-in bet from black guy would have intimidated him away, but at 5m he talks himself into praying for spades to show up. I'll call this particular call acceptable, though I probably would have folded.

- Everyone has 6m in the pot. Bond 40.5m, Le Chiffre 39.5m, asian guy 6m, black guy 5m.

- 4s comes up on the turn. And now we actually get to see everything that happens in the hand instead of assuming.

- Bond checks. The hand, from his perspective, is now over. He has a 100% chance of winning, nothing that happens on the river can change that. Knowing that he's in full control and will win no matter what, he slowplays by checking, hoping that other players make their hand and bet into his trap. Smart move.

- Asian guy checks. The dumbest move of the entire hand in my opinion. With the 4s showing up, his hand has now been made and can not possibly get any more than marginally better. He is locked into the flush, and the only thing that can make his hand any stronger now would be As showing up on the river. Now, as it turns out, As does show up on the river, but given that at this point that had only a 2.2% chance of happening, it makes no sense for him to be banking on that. He was drawing on the flush, he's made his flush, and he's already got half of his remaining chips in the pot. From his perspective, the hand is basically a done deal, and with so few chips left he has to do everything he can to protect his hand while he has, from his perspective, a 93.2% chance of winning. If he goes all in now, he'd be giving every indication that he's made his flush, and that might just have been enough to get Le Chiffre and black guy to fold. Obviously, if he goes all in now, he'd lose to Bond, but at least he would have made a fundamentally sound move. The odds of the river hurting him are much bigger than helping him. Terrible decision. Bad move #2.

- Black guy checks. Unsurprisingly the turn has basically wrecked him, as Bond and asian guy have both now caught the cards they needed and have him beat. His full house odds drop to 19.5%, and four of a kind drops to 2.2%. With more than half his chips in, I'd call him not going all-in now a bad move, but it's almost moot given that he missed his chance on the last round. Ah, what the hell, bad move #3.

- Le Chiffre checks. The turn gave him nothing, his full house odds are down to 8.6%. 58.1% odds of winning the hand. Smart check.

- River is As.

- Bond is unaffected and just hopes that the river helped someone else make their hand. Check. Good.

- Asian guy's hand improved slightly with the As giving him a AKQ flush, but his odds of winning the hand actually drop to 91.4%. He goes all-in, one round too late. In a vacuum, I can't exactly fault him for believing his AKQ flush is worth going all-in for, so I won't call this move bad with so few chips left, but the way he got here was very amateurish.

- Black guy goes all-in two rounds after he logically should have. He doesn't really have a choice as he's pot-committed, and the river did give him the full house and improve his odds of winning to 95.2%. Fair move, but he already blew the hand.

- Le Chiffre hits a full house on the river, with a 98.2% chance of winning the hand in a vacuum. Of course, we're not in a vacuum, so let's think about this. LC has already seen two players go all-in, showing great strength in their hands, and there's no point in trying to bluff either of them now. He has AAA 66, but being a mathematical genius, he must know that a few hands do have him beat. 5s 7s beats him, Ad and any of the three unaccounted eights beats him, so Le Chiffre is sitting on the fifth-best possible hand. Given the way in which the bets happened, it's very believable that someone has one of the four better hands (both black guy and asian guy have bet in a way that shows A8). However, LC might see it worthwhile to bet just to get the two short-stacks out of the game if he does end up having the best hand. That might justify the call. BUT, LC raises to 12 million, which can only affect Bond at this point. I'm torn on LC's raise. On the one hand, Bond hasn't exactly done anything to strongly indicate a great hand. But given the river has already showed up, it'll be a pretty easy decision for Bond to just get out of the hand with little damage if he doesn't have it. And if he DOES have it (which is possible), then LC is falling right into the trap. I'll call this one dubious, but not outright bad.

- Bond goes all-in, obviously the correct move now.

- And now Le Chiffre proves himself to be far from a poker expert. I know it's hard to lay down AAA 66 with 4 players, but Bond may as well have put a giant glowing billboard on his forehead that says "A8 OR BETTER" on it. It would have been easy for Bond to get out of the hand if he thought he didn't have it. He'd still have 40.5m in chips, keeping in mind that he went from 5m to 46.5m earlier in the game. If Bond had something like A4, pocket sixes, or some other hand that LC would have beaten, it's feasible that Bond would have called, but by going all-in he's broadcasting he's got a winner. Even if Bond is just bluffing (not totally impossible), LC knows that there are two other players who went all-in as well, and there are four hands that would beat his. So the odds, though strong in a vacuum, don't look nearly as good in context, and I'd go as far to say that LC absolutely SHOULD have folded and this is bad move #4.

Again, I know it's hard to throw AAA 66 away with 4 players, but there were too many red flags. Keep in mind that LC could have folded at this point and retained 27.5m in chips. Live to fight another hand, wait for a safer window to make his big move. Also keep in mind that there is no cashout for second place in this tournament, so coming in second means nothing. And, most importantly, LC isn't even playing for a 115 million dollar grand prize, he's actually playing for his LIFE. He bet his life on a hand of poker with red flags all over it. I might not be so hard on this move if the only stakes were his 10 million dollar buyin, but it was literally a matter of life and death.

So anyway, he DOES go all-in. To some degree, I think this 12m raise on his previous turn came back to bite him, as it made folding much less feasible with more of his chips in the pot. If he just calls 6m, maybe he'd realize he was walking into a trap. He failed to leave himself an out when the hand got dicey.

- More dealer shenanigans now. The dealer fails to split the chips into sidepots to account for the fact that all four players had different chip counts. I can accept that he was keeping track of them in his head, however. Then we have our showdown, where we run into another hiccup. Bond should have been prompted to show first, but the Asian guy is instead prompted to up the tension by letting Bond go last. This could have been handled by having Asian guy show WITHOUT being prompted.

And that's the hand. Bond wins. Now, I could MAYBE see the case for Asian guy and black guy botching the hand. It's possible they're both just super-rich guys with millions to burn and just looking for a thrill in a high-stakes poker game even though neither is an expert. It's also possible both were undercover agents of other governments, also trying to bankrupt LC, and were simply the best those various governments could come up with, with gaps in their understanding of the game.

But LC playing the hand like this makes no sense, as he's billed as a mathematical genius who understands every angle of the game. I would have bought it if he had A8, but not with A6.

  • If I'm reading your analysis correctly, you've misread the pre-flop action and haven't twigged the order of play properly. Pre-flop, Bond would be in the small blind, the Asian guy would be in the big, meaning that the black guy would be first to act. The real question that has to be asked is why the black guy would limp under-the-gun with 88 four-handed. LC's limp with A6 off is fair enough, if a tad overly cautious for the second biggest stack. Bond meeting the big blind makes sense with 75s, but then we meet another strange decision from the Asian guy to check the big blind with K Qs. We're running off assumption here, however. On the flop, turn and river, Bond would indeed act first as he's left of the dealer, and therefore acts first post-flop onwards, so your assertion that the dealer doesn't understand the game isn't right. The hand as it's portrayed is dreadful, dreadful poker though.
     Le Chiffre's Stockbroker 
  • Wouldn't Le Chiffre's stockbroker have suspected something if the plot to sabotage Skyfleet had been successful? Here's a man who calls him up to invest a huge amount of money into Skyfleet's stock all at once, ignoring the risks and seeming to realize that he could lose it all instantly if the airline continued its prospering trend. And then a few days later, someone shows up to the airfield and bombs their prototype, and Le Chiffre's "gamble" miraculously pays off? M mentions something about a similar occurrence happening with United and American Airlines stocks after 9/11. In both that instance and in real life when a surplus of 9/11-related stocks was noticed, an investigation was ordered. Why would that not have happened here?
    • Given the nature of Le Chiffre's business, and the business run by his bosses at Quantum / SPECTRE, it seems safe to assume that his stockbroker is not entirely on the up-and-up either, so would be likely to help obfuscate any potential investigations or at least maintain a certain level of plausible deniability.
    • It's probable he split his investment into many small pieces from numerous sham businesses and dummy accounts through brokers all over the world. While it wouldn't be invisible to regulators, it would take a little longer to notice.
     Le Chiffre's Plan 
  • Why would Le Chiffre take the risk with the warlord's money? He was expressly told not to take risks with it, and trying to make a profit by shorting airline stock and then causing a disaster is really risky. Sure, he would have stood to gain financially, but when his plan failed, he had effectively mismanaged money belonging to a mass murderer. Come to think of it, couldn't he have made money just as easily by buying $100 million in that airline's stock?
    • It's risky if you can't predict how the stocks are going to act. Le Chiffre had someone trying to blow up the plane, which would have netted him the money. It's not a gamble if you're stacking the deck.
      • That's pretty ironic, considering that after the plan filed, Le Chiffre's next strategy was to literally gamble for it.
      • Yes, but Le Chiffre doesn't consider that a gamble because he's that damn good at cards. And if it weren't for Bond, he would've won the game.
      • He was overconfident and thought his plan couldn't fail. Hell, he's on the phone with his broker to put in the order for the short sale while the cash has only just been loaded into his cars.
      • I think the question originally being asked is, why would Le Chiffre gamble with his clients' money rather than, say, just use a private fund for these operations? If he used that, sure, he can't invest as much, but at least his clients' money is protected if any of his little moneymaking schemes get stopped.
      • Because, again, he was sure he wouldn't lose. He's confident, and for good reasons, and his goal is not to invest in the safest way possible, his goal is to make a shitload of money for his clients very quickly. There are risks in that, but he believes those risks are worth the payoff and that he can pull it off so well that the "risks" aren't really a factor.
     Ignoring the Obvious 
  • I wonder one thing about Bonds' supposed poker skills, one of the thing you are taught (or at least learn) playing any game of chance and probability is to ignore the obvious, so why does Bond (apparently a great player) take Le Chiffres' incredibly obvious false tells as true tells? Le Chiffre is hosting a multi million dollar poker game, meaning he is obviously an extremely skilled poker player, meaning he would have no obvious tells, I mean come on? seriously Bond? you think itching temples and fidgeting with chips are a poker pros tells?
    • Granted I'm not a seasoned poker player by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know that tells, by their very nature, are more often than not completely involuntary. And I mean literally up to the point where most people don't even know what their own tells are. You can't necessarily prevent a tell from being displayed but you can use the knowledge of your tell against your opponents. Le Chiffre's tell isn't fake - he does it for real at several points in the game. It's just that he's probably played enough to know that it's his tell so it's a small thing for him to use it against his opponents: by consciously doing it when he doesn't need to, as he does with Bond. As Bond says, everyone has a tell. And Le Chiffre's isn't actually that obvious. We just have the added advantage of a camera focusing our attention on it.
    • Bond suspects Mathis was a traitor and told Le Chiffre of his tell and Le Chiffre was thus able to perform the tell on purpose to bluff Bond. The fact that Mathis wasn't a traitor doesn't mean that the tell was never real; it means that Vesper informed Le Chiffre instead.
    • There's probably also an element of Viewers Are Morons involved. In-universe, Le Chiffre's tell is probably meant to be incredibly subtle, but it has to be obvious to the audience for them to follow the plot. And anything that is going to be obvious to your average movie goer would be incredibly obvious to a skilled poker player.

    Vesper's refusal 
  • Why does Vesper refuse to stake Bond another $5 million if she's working for Quantum from the beginning? The whole point for Quantum in turning her is that they want the money so she should add more money to the pot, since either Le Chiffre wins it and then Quantum gets its money from Le Chiffre, or Bond wins it and they pressure her to get the money from him.
    • First of all, with Bond out of the game, Le Chiffre's odds of winning increase substantially. Secondly Vesper may just be doing what she thinks is right from a Treasury perspective (especially if she's dreaming of a happily ever after with Bond). Thirdly, we've already seen in the film that Vesper knows nothing about poker (Mathis has to explain it for her), so when Bond loses the hand she assumes it was arrogance and recklessness that cost him, when in reality the hand he had would win well over 99% of the time.

    The lucky car accident 
  • Why does Le Chiffre leave Vesper on the road and risk both her death and Bond's death in the resulting crash? He needs both of them alive to get the money, Bond for the password and Vesper for the account number. If one of them dies he's out of luck.
    • Le Chiffre is a gambler. He probably assumes that Bond won't hesitate to swerve and avoid Vesper. He's also desperate at this point, and isn't physically strong enough to disarm Bond so he has to be creative (he's clearly the kind of guy who relies on others to do his dirty work for him). He may well have also already gotten the code from Vesper. Le Chiffre is already a dead man walking by this point, given his clients are pissed off about him losing their money. He's lucky that Bond intervened to stop Obanno from killing him, but Quantum are on to him, so this is a last gasp desperate attempt to save his skin, thus he may not be thinking too rationally.

    Obanno and Le Chiffre 
  • How did Obanno know that Le Chiffre was playing poker in Montenegro with his money? Unless Le Chiffre told him, I have no idea how he gained that information. Unless Mr. White ratted on Le Chiffre to Obanno, but that doesn’t make much sense since Quantum / SPECTRE intended to get all that money anyway.
    • The leader of an international terrorist cell isn't going to just hand all his money to a complete stranger (to launder) and then not keep tabs on him. But considering Obanno's words when he's threatening Le Chiffre with his machete, it does seem just as likely that maybe he did get tipped off by Quantum / SPECTRE because they wanted Le Chiffre taken out by someone who has no affiliation with them.

    The baccarat game 
"Un banco de trente deux millons"
  • Le Chiffre has just cleaned out Bond and only needs 8 million more. When Bond suddenly bancos the current 32 million stake, Le Chiffre tries to have him killed. But before that happens, why didn't Le Chiffre already withdraw his 32 million bet and start over? Does baccarat not work that way? Or was it Pride?

Alternative Title(s): Casino Royale