It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
And it's funny how that is the case when they've inspired action scenes in films/media that most certainly are in the public's consciousness. Though perhaps that could also fit in to the argument about execution, too. (Compare and contrast the plane hook of LTK with the opening of TDKR, for example.)
But yes, I agree that a general casual attitude towards the Dalton films likely also plays a part in the reaction to the big sequences.
No I don't really buy that; stuff like the tank chase, FYEO's car/ski chases, TND car park sequence etc. all in the middle of the film and not overlooked.
I think it's just because it doesn't have the punch it could have had, for whatever reason.
I think it's a good action sequence, to be frank, far less dull than the caviar factory shootout in TWINE (or the Parahawk chase in the same movie), though perhaps not quite as strong as the Miami Airport mid-movie climax of CR. But I think it's comparable to Bond and Kara escaping to Vienna in TLD or, to steal @mtm's most adequate example, the ski chase in FYEO. Honestly, it's a part of LTK I'm always looking forward to. I also enjoy the little hint of TB when Bond fences off the frogmen underwater with all the harpooning, tearing goggles off, etcetera.
The fight also keeps up the pace pretty well. And Dalton does a lot of the physical stuff himself, which I absolutely applaud. I know that people often reference the '80s action blockbusters which were supposedly giving the Bonds the finger (and I suppose that to some extent, they were) but LTK has a couple of really intense, impressive and exciting action sequences to throw in the mix, not so easily dismissible I think, not even compared to, say, Die Hard or First Blood.
Hm, I must be mistaken then. I know they had to keep him on a leash when some serious stunting was about to happen, so perhaps I am making false associations.
They hide the stuntmen pretty well throughout, to their credit. It's a pretty great set-piece, overall.
Unlike some of the other Bonds the stuntmen are quite believable-looking doubles for him so it is more convincing than usual, but he's not really doing much more of that sequence than Roger would have done! :)
There's a shot of him on the pontoon of the plane in the water which is a bit of action acting, but this doesn't look like one of the sequences where he was hugely involved. He's doing more in the way of physical stuff in the PTS and tanker chase.
I do want to love that sequence as it's such a great idea and such a Bondy move, but it almost sounds cooler when you describe it to someone than it does to actually watch it (as Krest actually does later in the film!). And Kamen is giving it everything, so I'm not sure what it is about it which leaves me a bit cold. For me, as we're comparing the two, the FYEO ski chase is way more exciting; despite it having no importance to the plot of the film, unlike this seaplane stunt.
Random thought: other than this and the gags in Moonraker where Bond tells Moneypenny about falling out of a plane without a parachute, are there any other times in a Bond movie where someone is shown telling someone about a crazy stunt they've witnessed Bond doing? :D
Not sure. But Bond did say to Elektra that Renard used her exact words ;)
All of those sequences arguably (and justifiably) get more attention than the climaxes of their respective films as well. The tank chase is more memorable and badass than Bond scampering about the dish at the end of GE. The climax of FYEO is very good but the best shots are mostly of Bond falling down, rather than being proactive and charging forward as in the car and ski chases. The TND car park chase is considerably more fun than the interminable stealth ship climax.
Matters are different in LTK, where the seaplane sequence--no matter how excellent it is or could be (and I've never seen anything in its staging that could be much improved)--will always take a back seat to the tanker chase, which Glen described as a "mini-movie" and is certainly one of the most sustained action climaxes in the franchise.
Even if we leave aside that he apparently bet everything on this terror attack going through, even when he should know that a) those do get foiled a lot of the time and b) Dimitrios is a bit of a flake who has already lost his bomb maker AND we don't get into the final hand of the poker game - I don't play Poker, but people seem to be of the opinion that his decision making is pretty bad there - AND we ignore that the whole poker game idea is pretty wild to begin with; that still leaves his going after Bond after losing the game.
The whole point of Bond's mission is that MI6 and as we later learn the CIA believe that once Le Chiffre loses the Poker game SPECTRE/Quantum will come after him and he will have no choice but to cooperate with authorities and turn himself in in return for protection. He loses the game and instead of turning he decides to kidnap Bond and Vesper and tries to beat the money out of them, in a move that at first looks like he somehow outmanoeuvred Bond. But what happens immediately? The thing that everybody thought would happen: Mr. White comes and kills him.
The only thing I could come up with that would make this less stupid is if he thought the only threat was Obanno and he found out that Bond neutralised him already. But that still leaves the question how he could have underestimated White like that and also turns the problem over to Bond. Once Obanno is out of the game, what did Bond and Leiter think was going to happen after Bond won? Did the Americans just completely screw up the approach on Le Chiffre?
Still love the movie and Mads Mikkelsen. But Le Chiffre is a bit of a dummy, it seems.
Not sure I agree here.
Le Chiffre is a gambler. It is one of his most obvious traits as a character. Speculating with other people's money on a plan that could potentially go wrong is obviously a huge gamble, but that only fits perfectly with his character. It also fits very well with how he reacts after losing the poker game. How many gamblers would just simply give in and except imprisonment when there is still a chance to escape back to his glamorous life? How many villains or criminals would anyway? Taking risks are part of being a gangster to begin with. Besides, it was perfectly plausible that Bond would give in and tell him the pass word, and he would be able to pay up without problems.
About the actual poker game itself, it is so obviously written for film and by writers that are at best amateurs. Some of the combination of hands and circumstances are so unrealistic and ridiculous. Take the last hand for example: They have created the perfect scenario where all players have monster hands and go all in at the same time while the player with the most chips conveniantly wins and reveals his fluke hand last. How often would anything like that happen in real life? To analyse the hands and how they play from any serious perspective is pointless. It's a movie. Logic is sacrificed in favor of drama.
Moore was in Zodiac Crimes trilogy on old Batman series too
"guess it would've helped for audiences to know the guy since he wasn't a known face"
......and yet they hid Laz' face behind ski masks/helmets on some euro movie posters like Italy ;)
@Tracy, please use the edit button and avoid triple posting. Thank you.
I agree with @jobo's assessment that it is fairly consistent of Le Chiffre's character as a gambler that he acts the way he does. He's not an idiot, he just has a severe ego issue and refuses to accept defeat. He's much like Bond, in that sense. I also think he never truly believed that he would be killed by his own team, due to his importance in handling finances. Despite Obanno turning up, I don't think there would be any reason for Le Chiffre to suspect that White would naturally do so, too. There's no direct connection between the organisation and the war lord and there was likely no conversation about Obanno's money being lost between them ("I just make the introduction. That's all my organisation will guarantee", as White said.) The decision to kill Le Chiffre was taken by someone far away who just didn't want the hassle of having a gambling junkie around. They didn't give a toss about some African warlord's money (until, of course, they realised they still had Vesper as an asset).
Le Chiffre is as surprised as anyone when White turns up, and I'm sure he would have probably fundamentally disagreed with the notion that "money isn't as important to our organisation as knowing who to trust" had he been alive long enough to. It's not simply stupidity on Le Chiffre's part, it's ego and a sense of invincibility.
Now, about the CIA thing. That is never fully explained either but considering Vesper turned traitor and spent some time painting Mathis as one, it means nothing out of her mouth can be trusted. I don't believe the CIA would just "make contact" with Le Chiffre. They'd abduct him, plain and simple. There's no "extraction before dawn". I'd say she tipped Le Chiffre off well beforehand, and he was gone before the CIA got a chance to get near him, which put him one step ahead to make his final play with Bond and the money. In that sense, Vesper's gambling, too.
Yep, I think that's totally fair and it's something the book and movie both acknowledge I think. I like how, in the torture sequence, he's trying to be all villainous and evil but he's clearly acting out of blind panic and that's what allows Bond to get the better of him (even though he's going to die!). Setting up the poker game was the first stage of this panic in itself: it's quite refreshing to have a Bond film where the bad guy is on the back foot pretty much from the start.
He's possibly more unlucky than stupid in the book as he loses the money thanks to a new anti-prostitution law coming in, but it is implied that he invested in brothels rather than other wiser investments to sate his own desires, so there is an element of stupidity there.
But then why is Leiter playing in the game? That is basically what got me thinking about all this (and maybe the Questions thread would have been better suited after all). Why doesn't the CIA or MI6 just snatch Le Chiffre at any point during his stay in Montenegro? Obanno was able to just walk into his suite. Nobody can tell me a CIA team wouldn't have managed to get to him. And apparently that was their plan all along for after the game, so why wait? Leiter even says he doesn't care about the money. The CIA's accountant would probably disagree there and I guess they prefer it if the money doesn't disappear into some terrorist channels, but why even take the chance? Wait until everyone has paid into the escrow, blow the game up by taking Le Chiffre before it is done and then let Herr Mendel figure out what the hell to do with the money.
M says they can't let Le Chiffre win. Ok, why let him play then? The reason Bond plays is because M thinks Le Chiffre will turn if he loses. He doesn't, so that analysis was wrong in the part that he would always try to elongate the game or try something else to get back his winnings; it was right in that he actually can't and it is game over for him.
The problem is that Vesper (I think?) spoils it from the inside and gives Le Chiffre a possible out of the situation. Basically everyone screws up in this film! :)
To be honest I've never quite worked out Vesper's level of involvement with what's going on.
Yes, it's very true that the plot hinges on a fundamental level of ridiculously unneccessary risk from the point of view of the agencies involved; risk that they likely would have resolved, very simply, by force in reality. It's also true of the novel, though that obviously has the benefit of being able to go into a lot more detail naturally.
I always thought of the line from Vesper on the train about "directly financing terrorism" if they failed was a self-aware nod and a wink to the more unbelievable aspects of the plot that is otherwise fairly grounded in comparison with other Bond plots.
Once you get to the actual ski chase itself it just seems so much less. In between the visual jokes, there's the cliché of the machine guns that can't hit anything and this is also where Conti's score does the opposite of what it should. I love the Runaway song but it doesn't work well in the scene. Besides that, these scenes do nothing to compete with the superior work in OHMSS. Then it's topped by Bond's simple escape and the Kreigler's ridiculous gesture of throwing the wrecked motorcycle at him.
On the other hand, the seaplane escape feels wholly original and combines action in and on the water and then in the air. The waterskiing is similar to the inventiveness of the snowboarding in AVTAK with Bond using what's at his disposal. Only Bond feels so much more in danger here and with a perfect ending with Bond having a laugh of relief at his fortune of being on the plane with the cash.
I do absolutely want to love the seaplane sequence: as written it is, as you point out, brilliant. But where the plot tension of the OHMSS chase absolutely combines with the great shooting and editing to make a fantastically exciting sequence, somehow I find the seaplane one to be less than the sum of its parts.
While I continue to reflect on this, I think that is what is confusing me most. I don't really get, what exactly Vesper is doing at what point, when she isn't on-screen and therefore have a problem following the crosses and double-crosses she facilitates.
It really is a credit to the film that I have always and still consider it a masterful film, while I apparently haven't actually understood the plot. This might be a good example of plot and story being different things. The (emotional) story of the film and of the character of Vesper is very clear and understandable, while the plot might be a little impenetrable at times.
I'm pretty sure the plot doesn't really make sense and nobody understands it.
I mean, why not have Vesper, who is a lot more cooperative than Bond, change the bank account number? And if she's not cooperative, why not torture her and make her do it? What's he gonna do with Bond's password? Confirm the transfer of the money to the account designated by Vesper anyway? It doesn't make sense.
Even if it did, does he think he's gonna show up and tell the banker, "Hey, the actual winner couldn't be here, but he asked me, his hostile final opponent, to enter the password for him."
I really have no idea what's meant to be going on. But it does work insofar as Bond is the good guy, Le Chiffre is the bad guy, and Vesper is some kind of traitor. And my memory of Fleming's Casino Royale can replace the nonsensical bits of the film. I think a lot went wrong in the "modernizing" of the story. If, as in the book, Bond had a check and Le Chiffre wanted it, it'd be a lot easier.
While her actual machinations in the plot are opaque, I always saw Vesper as the organization's backup plan: if Le Chiffre failed, then they had her to get the money from Bond.
This is a good reading of it. It makes me even more saddened that the narrative re-definition of what we now know what was SPECTRE wasn't very well thought through in the film of the same name. The shadowy nature of them presented in CR (with the Vesper angle) is fascinating and provides a great backdrop to the central Bond-Le Chiffre conflict, and left a few interesting questions unanswered.
How long was Vesper compromised? We know why she did what she did, but we don't know how long it had been since her "boyfriend" had been kidnapped and the blackmail commenced. Also, did Le Chiffre know from the beginning that Vesper was a double-agent? Or did he only become aware of it after the game was finished? Did he ever really know, actually? We never see her getting tortured while Le Chiffre is whipping Bond into shape, but I always assumed that they probably did torture her.
Answering these kinds of questions would certainly have bogged the pacing down and over-explaining things often makes them less interesting, but it's fun to ponder.
I may be too nit-picky, but I think the questions "What are these people doing and why?" can and should be answered without bogging things down too much!
Heh! Yeah. Every time I watch it, I love it, and every time I promise myself to try and understand why Bond says "Mathis!!" when Vesper has left him having his breakfast of caviar after winning the game, but I get distracted by the fun car chase and amazing torture scene :D
It is actually quite bad storytelling to have Mathis stunned and taken away and then to not show him again in the film when it seems that he's innocent. It's fine to bring him back in the sequel but stuff like that needs to be tied up in the same film.
But it shows you how good the film is that you actually forget these things.
Yes indeed, and that's the same with Skyfall: we've seen many debates about how the plot makes no sense and how implausible it is that Silva could have planned everything, but the drama hits you first and the characters' reactions are so much more important and strong, and the action is so much exciting and tense, that they outweigh that.
That's a really good point: I'd have to go back and see if there's any more explanation of what that password is actually for.
Actually I don't think it's established well enough that Vesper must have designated the account, because that's why Bond goes chasing after her in Venice. I know she's from the Treasury and all that, but her role is established more to give Bond money to play in the game than it is to receive it. That's another bit that's not really massively clear.
I'm not sure if he is meant to be innocent in this film or if that was just a retcon in QOS.... If he's innocent it's weird for Le Chiffre to trick Bond, who he obviously intends to kill anyway. It's like a callback to the similarly odd Goldeneye PTS!
See also: The Living Daylights :)
Well, we do get answers as to why Vesper does what she does in fairness. And we know why Le Chiffre does what he does. And why Bond does what he does. And once that's covered, the rest (i.e. the examples I listed in the follow-up paragraph) is just colouring.
Well, I don't understand why Le Chiffre is torturing Bond for a password he can't use when the more cooperative person in the other room can get him the money by changing the account number. Or why, if he didn't think of that, Vesper didn't make the suggestion to save meaningless trouble, when she was happy to do that later anyway. Imagine Bond gave him the password and try to figure out what Le Chiffre would do from that point...
Regarding TLD, I think that film does this kind of audience confusing better. The double crosses and intrigues are all eventually explained completely, and while the motive for everything ends up being somewhat disappointingly small potatoes, they get a good ride out of it.