Casino Royale Poker Scene Bond Wins
Last Poker Hand in Casino Royale Last game of the poker tournament in the movie Casino Royale (2006), in which Daniel Craig aka James Bond beats the bad guy Le Chiffre and grabs $115 million. The final hand worked perfectly for him. However, what was his odds of winning on the beginning and during the course of play? Finally, the Casino Royale script is here for all you fans of the Daniel Craig James Bond movie. This puppy is a transcript that was painstakingly transcribed using the screenplay and/or viewings of the movie to get the dialogue.
So how did the 2006 movie do with Poker as the game where Bond bests the villain? [a change from baccarat in the book] An early short poker scene, which introduces us to the villain Le Chiffre’s poker predilection, does not show the hand. That leaves five hands to see, but of those two are incompletely shown.
couldn't stand it, so redid this with the community cards actually shown - thanks to Wizard for poker analyzer enabling me to do this easily
Casino Royale Poker Scene Bond Wins Against
with other edits; if the community was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate on suits
edited to show community cards. If it was mixed suits, I made no attempt to be accurate.
The winner take all poker game takes place at this ‘Casino Royale’ in Montenegro [apparently there has been one built with that name since the movie came out?]. I was able to record it, thus freeze and review the action and dialogue, and I think without slowing it down like that you might miss much of the poker dynamics. The 10 players, who put up multi-millions to play, will play Texas Hold-em.
First you see Bond lose the first hand to ‘guess who’. The dealer flops the 5,8,9 of hearts; on the turn, it’s the 9 of clubs, and for the river another heart, the 2.
Thus the hand has an immediate shot, at the flop, for a straight flush, or of course the lower versions [any poker player would know someone surely has a flush], and we can see the hand later develops with chances for trips and full house. Le Chiffre was dealt 2,2 offsuit, gets into a showdown with Bond, and wins with a full house, 22299. Bond does not show his cards, nor attempt to muck them, which prompted me to look this up, see link. The dealer should have made Bond turn those cards over. This was the only thing shown in poker that the movie had wrong that I saw, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_%28poker%29
Bond leaves the table and has a conversation with his team, which is impressed that their nemesis had such a good hand, but Bond scoffs. He notes that Le Chiffre was bluffing, he says, since he caught a 2 on the last card. But he says he has picked up a Tell; when Le C was on the come with his two pair, Bond saw a tic developing with the man’s blind eye; Le C he notes then presses against his temple, which seems to stop this involuntary twitch. Bond can just look for the finger pressing the temple and imagines beating him now.
Bond rejoins the game - we get the sense a lot of poker gets played. Soon we have a scene where there is a big showdown in which both of these players go all-in. We don’t see a check-raise scenario, but something close. The flop is JKA mixed suits, the turn a J, the river, a K, and there are three players.
Until this point the betting evidently has been small, but now Bond , with the first-to-speak player checking to him, opens with a large bet. Le C raises [driving out player X, now it’s just the two of them] and Bond reraises as the bets get larger and larger. Le C then goes all-in and Bond has to go all-in to call. It turns out Bond has been dealt AK, giving him a full house, while Le C was dealt 2 jacks, so he’s the winner with 4 OAK. See other spoiler. This time Bond caught his hand on the last card while Le C slowed-played his hand, having had it all along after the turn. Bond has lost it all.
While Bond is out, we see this player X get in a showdown with Le C, the community cards being, in mixed suits, 3577A, previous action unshown.
In the showdown, X goes all-in with AJ, while Le C shows AQ and wins with better kicker, disgusting X.
Bond buys back in [one further buy-in was allowed] with the help of player X, who turns out to be CIA. That organization wants Bond back in the game. Apparently this is in the book too.
When we see the next poker scene, it’s evident that Bond has been winning, with Le C also with a large chip pile. Not much of a next hand is shown either, but we briefly see 24862 in mixed suits as community cards.
Le C bets and Bond raises. Using slo-mo I could see Le C then toss 2J - he had trips, 222, but must have feared the possible higher trips or a straight. One feels Bond and the pressure psyched him out on that one, but we never see Bond’s hand. Not many movie-goers saw Le C’s hand either, I wouldnt think.
They of course are heading for another big showdown, this one to determine final winner of the multi-millions. It’s going to be check-raise strategy for the trap this time. The flop this is Ah 8s 6s, with 4 of spades on the turn, Ace of spades on the river [for Ah 8s 6s 4s As].
After all cards are dealt, Bond checks undramatically. The next 2 players go all-in, then Le C raises. Bond, who had checked, now goes all-in. This forces Le C to go all-in to call. The four player showdown has the first guy with an AKQ flush, the next with a Eights over Aces full house. Le C had an A6 dealt, and since 3 eights have shown, I suppose he could be thinking the chances of Bond having A8 to beat him as unlikely, and 4oak as impossible - although the die is cast. I’ve played against guys who would be all over it like that. There is only one hand that can beat him, so I will direct you to the other spoiler - everyone who’s read this far, at this site, though, will know what it is.
Bond tips the dealer with a $500,000 chip
In the hand that knocks Bond out so that he has to buy in shows Le C pressing a finger on his temple. Bond is sucked in to going all in because this is the sign Le C is bluffing. However, someone Bond trusted with this has betrayed him, and the faked Tell is a trap. The rest of the movie plays out the solution to who is betraying who and when.
In the final hand that knocks out Le C and has 007 winning it all, Bond has the 5 and 7 of spades - he wins with a straight flush. He gets it at the turn and slow plays it, then check-raises for the trap after the river. This time it is Le C who catches his hand on the last card - an unfortunate catch, the worst thing to have in Poker, a very good second place hand LOL. Whether this was all thought out, I don’t know, but Bond playing with a 5 and 7 of anything is very weak play IMO, but it is made plausible even at these stakes as everyone is ‘checking’ initially and it’s not clear if Bond was one of the blinds.
So I would say the film succeeds in showing the gambling correctly. Although, at least for me, to follow it well I needed to record it, I think since all underlying action is plausible, Fleming would approve.
Fleming himself wanted to portray gambling accurately, and I don’t think the movies have necessarily stuck to that.
.
I read just about all the James Bond Books. Really good Books.
Except for DR No, there is hardly any relationship between the books and movies.
Usually the movies just use the same name of the book and charachters but the story is completely different from the book.
It bothered me that the dealer was replacing the board cards with the player's cards to make each hand clear for the camera.
I didn't give it more thought that that, so I am intrigued by your analysis O.G. I'll have to go back and re-watch it now.
I thought the med kit in the car was pretty cool. I chuckled when it let him die. That's a bad run of luck...hehe.
I thought the idea that every player had a monster hand was a huge stretch of the imagination.
well, you always have that.
It bothered me that the dealer was replacing the board cards with the player's cards to make each hand clear for the camera.
I think they realized that they were being more accurate about the poker than the audience was going to be able to keep up with as it was, so I think the idea of at least doing this won out. Seemed a little corny.
I didn't give it more thought that that, so I am intrigued by your analysis O.G. I'll have to go back and re-watch it now.
Thanks, it took a lot more effort than I expected - I realized over and over again I wasn't sure I had it right, and had to watch again.
I thought the med kit in the car was pretty cool. I chuckled when it let him die. That's a bad run of luck...hehe.
wow they really did make him look like hell in that scene!
I thought the idea that every player had a monster hand was a huge stretch of the imagination.
It bothered me that the dealer was replacing the board cards with the player's cards to make each hand clear for the camera.
I didn't give it more thought that that, so I am intrigued by your analysis O.G. I'll have to go back and re-watch it now.
I thought the med kit in the car was pretty cool. I chuckled when it let him die. That's a bad run of luck...hehe.
Not a horrible stretch. Wasn't there a hand with some poker pros where there was AA, AA, KK, and maybe even a QQ?
Not a horrible stretch. Wasn't there a hand with some poker pros where there was AA, AA, KK, and maybe even a QQ?
AA, AA, KK for sure. If QQ was in there, he folded it.
Yes, those hands happen, but it's become cliche for those to be the climactic hand of a movie. That's one thing that Rounders really got right. The winning hand of the climactic match...
Administrator
In the outstanding movie House of Games there was a game with a double fake tell. At least that was my interpretation.
impressionable age. I loved them and
read them over and over. I started
reading them the same year Ian Fleming
died, so the original 13 books were all
in print. I sometimes wonder what effect they
had on me, I really loved them.
I read just about all the James Bond Books. Really good Books.
Except for DR No, there is hardly any relationship between the books and movies.
Usually the movies just use the same name of the book and charachters but the story is completely different from the book.
I love the books. But I disagree, a lot of the early movies are fairly spot on (as much as movies can be). As is Casino Royale (the official EON version, 2006)
Casino Royale was pretty accurate minus the changes from baccarat to poker (which makes sense for the movie), and the elimination of the KGB and replacing it with a modern terror organization. But the plot and characters were almost identical other than thematically changes.
Dr. No is almost spot on minus some changes regarding recurring characters prior developments since they decided to make it the opening film.
Goldfinger is almost spot on. As is Thunderball.
Octopussy and Living Daylights are just compilations of short stories, some of them are pulled for the plot, but not much relation.
Living Daylights, is fairly accurate, but the movie went a little offcourse.
Moonraker annoyed me greatly. Absurd movie and the book was amazing. They should have modeled the plot after the book. But maybe by the late 70s (when they made it into a movie) they thought the Nazi plot to attack England would be outdated.
Spy Who Loved me was the only book I hated. I despise it, load of trash, clearly a pushed attempt at broadening the audience. It was written from the female perspective. And, had nothing to do with anything spy or espionage related. (***Spoilers*** even though you should never read it and probably never will) Basically some female was trapped into working in some cabin in rural New York where she was raped and abused by 2 thugs (I think they happened to be Russian and ex-KGB for good measure) and Bond happened to be in that random New York rural area and stopped by that cabin in time to save her... I suspect it was a publisher pushed novel to appeal to female readers, completely unlike anything else. Needless to say the movie has nothing to do with the book (even less so than Moonraker, they didn't even use the villians names). This is probably the only instance where the movie is better than the book (but that is not saying much).
Man With the Golden Gun, was a decent book. It was a bit bland, but to be fair it was published after he died in 1965 I think, and they only had a rough copy to publish. But the plot is interesting. Some people hate it, but I actually enjoyed it. To make up for his betrayal to England and attempt to kill M, Bond is given an impossible task (kill man with the Golden Gun). This is the final official Bond Novel (written by Ian Fleming). The book is fairly unrelated to the movie, except for the general backstory of the villain, and his history. I don't care for the movie, and its a shame, because Christopher Lee (who is actually Ian Flemings cousin) played the villian, and he is probably my favorite actor of all time, but it as a typical goofy Roger Moore movie, so even with his excellent villianous style, the movie was hard to take too seriously.
I think Timothy Dalton is the best Bond as far as being loyal to the books. He was the perfect balance of serious, professional, darkly sarcastic, and on the brink of losing it (well he did lose it in his last movie).
Poker Casino Royale Bond
Casino Royale Movie
A theme with the books is the villain is almost always a cheater at cards (or some betting game). And, often Bonds first interaction involve meeting or encountering him a gambling scenario noticing his cheating.Though Fleming was somebody who was a believer in betting systems. He even gives a couple in some of the books for roulette, that Bond routinely used to cover his dinner in the books.
- Page 1 of 3
Much of James Bond’s half-century appeal is the fact that he is good at everything. Fighting, killing, running, jumping, driving, fucking—everything. Not only that, but we expect him to be good at everything. When he enters an extremely high-stakes ($10 million buy-in) winner-take-all Texas Hold ‘Em tournament in Montenegro, we fully expect him to win.
007 does win, of course, but the tension throughout makes for the greatest poker scene in film history, bar none.
First of all, Daniel Craig is by far the most badass Bond in the franchise’s history. He may not be the consummate professional that Sean Connery was or half the pussy-hound Roger Moore was, but Craig brings a ruthless, modern sensibility, along with a surplus of steel-eyed charisma.
Sean Connery may have bested Goldfinger on the golf course, but Daniel Craig’s James Bond was born to play cards.
Secondly, the scene-setting is perfect, the geography of the game room clearly laid out. We know the entrances and exits, the elevation, where the bar is located—we even begin to know who is sitting next to whom.
Likewise, the dealer is basically the James Bond of dealers. Thanks for running a smooth game, buddy!
The game is basically Bond versus main villain Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson), who makes an excellent foil throughout the film. But it’s not like the other eight players aren’t there, either. Their presence is still felt, making this tourney highly realistic.
Director Martin Campbell—who also directed Pierce Brosnan in 1995’s GoldenEye—takes his time with the poker scenes, letting the tension build through sustained silence and the occasional commentary from the dealer.
The close-up glares of Bond and Le Chiffre from across the table bring us right into the game. We are in Bond’s shoes. Is Le Chiffre holding? Is he bluffing? Is he cheating? What does it mean when he keeps putting his finger to his forehead?
Likewise, the big hands—and the hefty bets that go with them—keep things very interesting. Bond goes all-in with a kings-over-aces full house, but loses to Le Chiffre’s four-of-a-kind jacks. The final hand, after Bond has bought back in for 5 mill (no big deal, right?), features the greatest showdown of all. James Bond being James Bond, he catches the straight flush for the dramatic victory.
Often, the spirit of competitive games does not translate well to film. Casino Royale, at least in my opinion, contains some of the finest portrayal of sport—if you consider poker to be a sport—that I’ve ever seen.
Yet the violent intermissions are what empower the tension at the table. Bond goes to hell and back during the game’s scheduled breaks. When I play poker, I usually have a smoke or take a piss. 007, on the other hand, finds the time to kill Madagascar thugs between hands.
During one intermission, Bond’s heart literally stops—his martini having been poisoned by Le Chiffre—and he is revived at the last second by Vesper. Dude literally comes back from the dead and owns everyone with the most amazing straight flush in cinematic history.
Game. Set. Match.