Roger Ebert Misremembers Stuff For His Review

There is a danger when, in trying to convince readers that a new film in a series is really good, that you'll take the shortcut of badmouthing previous entries, just to support your opinion. Even if you end up contradicting your previous reviews.

This is especially dangerous in the internet era, because the reader can look this stuff up, even when you didn't bother to.

From Roger Ebert's review of Casino Royale: "...Daniel Craig is bloody damned great as Bond..."

From Roger Ebert's review of Quantum Of Solace: "Daniel Craig remains a splendid Bond, one of the best."

From Roger Ebert's initial review of Skyfall: "...with Daniel Craig taking full possession of a role he previously played unconvincingly."

So..."bloody damned great" and "splendid" means "played unconvincingly"??? Maybe it's some kind of professional critics' code...or maybe he changed his mind about Daniel Craig's earlier performances.

Or maybe, just maybe, Ebert couldn't think of a better way to praise Craig's current performance than contradict himself.

Or perhaps he didn't remember what he actually thought of the earlier movies, and couldn't be bothered to look it up. It wouldn't be the first time a critic misremembered Bond's past in order to make a point...

I tweeted Roger Ebert, questioning him about this. I received no reply (nor did I expect one...dude must get 1,000 silly questions per day). But subsequently, he rewrote the online review to read: "...with Daniel Craig taking full possession of a role he earlier played well in "Casino Royale," not so well in "Quantum" -- although it may not have been entirely his fault. Or is it just that he's growing on me?"

So, let's be fair: he goofed, but he corrected it (although "a splendid Bond, one of the best" is still pretty inconsistent with "[played] not so well in Quantum")

Still, that is not the only example of his forgetfulness of previous films.

More from the Skyfall review: "The movie's innovations begin in its first shots, which abandon the familiar stalking silhouettes in the iris lens, and hit the ground running."

Well, it's an "innovation" only if you don't count the last two movies, which also did the same thing.

And it's not an "iris lens," it's a gun barrel, Roger--unless you think 007 has been shooting photographers for 50 years...

Yes, it's a very positive review. And he's a heck of a fine writer. But it would be a lot easier to take Mr. Ebert's film criticism seriously if he actually paid attention.

This Had Better Be A Bonus Feature On The Blu-Ray

Quantum Of Solace--Revisited

Well, it's out. Do I have anything new to say?

First, I should note that it is my first Blu-ray Bond (well, technically a tie, since I purchased it simultaneously with Never Say Never Again). One consequence I hadn't foreseen--my computer doesn't have a Blu-ray Disc player, so I can't do any screencaps. Perhaps by the time The Hildebrandt Rarity comes around, I'll have upgraded my computer.

Secondly, I don't plan to upgrade the rest of my Bond collection to Blu-ray anytime soon. Yes, the picture and sound are fantastic...but unlike the leap from VHS to DVD, the Blu-rays are only incrementally better than the Ultimate Edition DVDs. Particularly with my current AV set-up, which isn't upscale enough to make the fullest use of those incremental upgrades. Plus, the Blu-rays don't feature any additional special features over the UE DVDs. Having already purchased most of the Bond films 4 times already (VHS, widescreen VHS, DVD, Ultimate Edition DVD...damn you, Eon!!), I really can't justify blowing the dollars again for essentially nothing extra. So, until I get a better AV setup and win the lottery, no more Blu-ray for snell.

Finally, I know I'm stupid for not waiting for the next release of a "super ultimate edition" of QoS. But man, this is a disappointingly spare release. No commentary track? Really? No BD-Live support of any kind? Not even a link to a bloody webpage?!? Only 1 teaser and one theatrical trailer?? The "production diaries" are nice, but they were all already available on the internet (for free!), and most are 2 minutes or less in length. Of the 5 "featurettes," 4 are under 3 minutes, they cannibalize each other, and are shockingly light on actual information. For example, despite 2 "on location" featurettes, there's not a single mention of the Chilean mayor who staged a protest to try and stop production. Plus--both "On Location" AND ""Bond On Location" (along with "Start of Shooting") as the titles?? That's pretty typical of the lack of imagination and effort here.

But how has the movie itself aged in the past 5 months? I'll pretty much stand by most everything I wrote back in my original review. That is: good, but far from great. There are flashes of brilliance, and some real excitement.

But like the poster and cover shot on the disc, it's too spare, too bleak, too dry. The movie is so intent on hammering home its themes that it makes no time for dialogue, for relationships, for the Bond panache. Has there ever been a Bond film that has been so little fun to watch?

QoS can't even take time for the proper dialogue. Has there ever been a Bond film so bereft of memorable lines? Has there ever been a Bond film where characters' line just don't sync up with each other or what's going on? Example: in Haiti, Elvis berates the guy guarding the gate, "Pay attention next time!!!" This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the scene. When 007 goes to fetch Mathis, he says "you're the only one I can trust," and Mathis suddenly launches into a soliloquy about the old and the young and right and wrong, which doesn't seem apropos at all to what Bond said. At MI-6, the Forensics Tech starts to tell M, "we've done a forensics analysis of every note and its traceable history," but is interrupted by Tanner, who says "Not in the mood." Everyone steps into the lab, on the forensics tech...proceeds to give a forensics analysis of every bill in Mitchell's wallet. Huh? Did we miss something?? Was a lot of stuff edited out so conversations don't make sense? Or was the script just never properly finished? Either way, you get a sense of a movie that doesn't care about details, and instead is interested in hurtling from Point A to Point B as fast as possible, sense be damned.

Obviously, this applies to the editing of the action scenes, too. I harped enough about this last time. But let me just note that, with freeze frame and slo-mo and rewind at my command, you still often can't tell exactly what the hell is happening. During the rooftop chase with Mitchell, you still can't tell where the characters are in relation to each other--and I still swear that they get their directions reversed a few times. In the fight with Slate in the Haiti hotel room, you can't tell how Slate gets his throat severed--by the fall through the glass? Bond? Accidentally stabbing himself? And of course, in the boat chase, there still no sense at all in how the last boat gets toppled, or what the hell that grappling hook had to do with anything. The garage at the desert hotel just suddenly starts exploding when an SUV backs into a wall...why? If there was a hydrogen cell there, we never saw it (hint, Marc Forster...it's called an "establishing shot"). Either Forster and the editors didn't know how to show us, or didn't care. It was "We've got our action sequence, let's move on!"

Sadly, we also have no relationship between Bond and Dominic Greene, our villain. This is not to pick on Mathieu Almaric...the script just keeps him and Bond apart the whole movie. Don't forget, most of what Greene does the first half of the movie is out of Bond's sight and hearing, and James hasn't heard Camille's sad story yet. So there's no real sense of conflict. They don't even meet until an hour into the movie, and then they don't really share any dialogue...Bond only says "I'm sorry, Mr. Greene, but we have to go" and "I'm sure they do." That's literally it until Bond drops Greene in the desert at the end. It's a wasted opportunity, because I think Almaric could have been quite a good Bond villain. But you just can't keep Bond and his villain separated the entire movie and expect their interaction to be compelling.

Commenter Tags took me to task earlier for not paying sufficient attention to Strawberry Fields. Sorry, Tags, but I still feel there's no "there" there. Again, no fault to Gemma Atherton. But the entirety of her role is show up at the airport, back down to Bond; go to a particular hotel, back down to Bond; act cool, but back down and go to bed with Bond; unnecessarily trip Elvis down the stairs, and die offscreen. The entire role felt pasted on a "hey, we've gotta have someone Bond can sleep with and crack jokes to, let's write a role quickly" feel to it. Had the character not even been in the movie, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to how the story played out.

Then again, you can say that about most of the rest of the movie's plot devices: "We've got to do something besides having Bond brooding for an hour and a half!" Mitchell goes rogue, it's treated as if that was unbelievable--and never mentioned again. Oh, the poor Bolivians and their water shortage--except Bond would have gone after Greene just as hard if he'd never set foot in Bolivia, and did nothing to stop the villain's plot. Ditto for Camille--she'd have gone after Medrano just as fiercely even if there hadn't been a coup plot and an unnecessary attempted rape scene. Beam gets his comeuppance, and Leiter is promoted, but it's offscreen--just take our word for it. Everything in this movie is just a prop--the villain's plot, the MacGuffins, the water shortage, the coup, everything. They're just there as window dressing , something to pass the time until Bond can confront Yusef. And if Bond and the writers and director don't really care about them, why should we? That's why there's so little sense of danger and urgency to the proceedings, because the filmmakers never invested themselves in what was happening, and let that lack of commitment come through in the final product.

Which is a shame, because there's a lot to admire in this movie. The location work is great (even though we're not always in the actual advertised location, at least we're not in a studio). The opera set piece is good (although the vaguely referred to action sequence is treated as a barely-tolerated add-on). The stunts, when you can follow them, are exciting. The performances are all top-notch, especially given how little the script gives them.

But QoS plays more like an outline for a Bond movie, rather than a full-fledged 007 outing. The wit, the flair, the excitement are all lacking, or dialed down to a near undetectable level. Where are the moments in which you can look at the screen and say, "That's gotta be a Bond film?" Which is what keeps this a middle-of-the-pack Bond film.

SNELL'S RANDOM NOTES AND OTHER OBSERVATIONS:

**The jet and helicopter that chased Bond's DC-3...whom did they belong to? Not the Bolivian government, surely. Did Medrano already control portions of the air force? Does Quantum have their own private air force that operates with impunity in Bolivian airspace?

**I griped about this last time, but it's worth repeating: M, the head of MI-6, goes personally into the field for interrogations in Italy, in Bolivia, in Russia?!? Going into the field was treated as something radical in TWINE...

**Fields excuses herself from Mathis and the police colonel to help Bond...she gets there as Bond and Camille are already descending the stairs. By the time Bond gets to the car, Mathis is already beaten up and stashed in the back, with the motorcycle cops ready to ambush him. How'd that happen so quickly, unless 007 and Camille did a lot of lallygagging on their way out?

**It's right on the screen in M's office, as clear as day: Bond's birthday is April 13, 1968. He was in the Royal Navy 86-96, "RNR Defense" 96-99 (sorry, you got me on that one), and MI-6 99-Present. His SSID# is 94612751. So, let's party next Monday for Bond's 41st birthday, eh?

**While we're on freeze frame patrol, Greene's birthday is July 12, 1964. And according to her Bolivian driver's licence, Camille's full name is Camille Montes Rivero, and her blood type is O positive. No birth date is shown, but her license expires on October 23rd, and that's usually on one's birthday, isn't it??

**Yeah, I know they're doing most of the work underground, but it's not like they're Mole People or something--there must have been ample evidence of Greene Planet's drilling and dynamiting and damning. You'd have to have trucks and heavy equipment and probably helicopters and etc on the surface...yet both the Bolivian government and Medrano appear completely unaware of Green's work out there (on land that he doesn't have the rights to yet!!)...

Quantum Of Solace (SPOILERS)

A few weeks ago in my discussion of The World Is Not Enough, I compared the film to some of Shakespeare's "problem plays." Like those plays, TWINE was somewhat controversial with fans and critics: it didn't seem to fit conveniently into the categories that had been used to classify previous films, and tried to do a lot of interesting things but didn't actually following through on the promise of any of them.

Which brings us to Quantum Of Solace, a.k.a. Too Bourne, Or Not Too Bourne--That Is The Question.

Let me be clear--QoS is distinctly superior to TWINE in almost every way, and is a pretty good film. But it could have been--should have been--a much better film.

Like TWINE, QoS had a director who seems to lack confidence (and competence) for the action genre. Like TWINE, QoS tries to do a lot of new things, but is less than 100% successful. Like TWINE, the script in QoS lets the movie down somewhat, failing to build up the proper connective tissue between action scenes to make the audience properly care about them. Now, as I said above, in each of these criticisms, QoS is more successful the TWINE was. And QoS is still, I think, a pretty good movie. But upon reflection, I find myself more haunted by the flaws than impressed by the good things. That, my friends, is a problem play.

A few caveats before we go any further. First, despite having seen QoS several times (please don't ask how many), I still don't know it all as well as any of the other Bond films. And without a DVD to reference, I'll doubtless be uncertain more often, or even mistaken more often, than I was in my other reviews. Please forgive me, and allow me to revise (and post many more pictures) when the DVD breaks.

Secondly, as I suspect will is the case with all of us, my opinions are still in flux. How I regard certain scenes, or even the movie as a whole, seems to swing wildly at times, sometimes from hour to hour. Six months from now, two years from now, exposure and familiarity and debate may very well have morphed my opinion into something else. Again, please indulge me in this new (for me) experience of reviewing a brand-spanking new Bond film.

On to the film. But before we even get to the teaser, we must deal with the fact that QoS is a direct sequel to Casino Royale (2006), with producer Michael Wilson famously telling us that it took place "5 minutes after" its predecessor. With the possible exception of the teaser for Diamonds Are Forever, this is really the first Bond sequel we've had, the first case of one movie's plot spinning out of events in the earlier one. Some have even gone so far as to declare that QoS is really just the "final act" of CR06.

To which I declare...poopy. Those facts should have zero influence on how we review QoS. Star Trek III: The Search For Spock was a direct, immediate sequel to Wrath of Khan...yet certainly no one should should suggest that I give STIII bonus points or grade it on some special curve just because it continues the story of STII. QoS is its own entity: it has its own director, its own 2nd unit director, its own cinematographer, its own production designer, its own editors...it has a very different look and style than CR06. Even director Marc Forster insists that QoS shouldn't be viewed as a sequel.

To suggest the QoS is just some appendage of Cr06 is frankly insulting to both films. To suggest that CR06 somehow needed a "last act" is, in my opinion, nuts. And since QoS traveled to 3 continents and 5 countries and featured different villains and allies and a new plot, it's pretty demeaning to the latter movie to suggest that it's merely a continuation, an afterthought. No, Quantum of Solace must stand on its own--the filmmakers deserve at least that much respect.

So, on to the teaser...and they throw it right in our faces early on: Too Bourne, or Not Too Bourne? This is the fundamental question that has Bond fans debating with considerable vigor.

But I think there's an even deeper question here, more fundamental. In another essay I'll discuss Bond vs. Bourne, and explain why, although I really like Bourne, that I find Bond preferable on most levels. But I don't think we can properly judge whether QoS is "too Bourne," or whether Bourne style is appropriate for James Bond, for one very important reason: what we're given here is very, very poorly done Bourne.

It was apparently required for all mainstream media reviewers to refer to Marc Forster as an "art-house director" in their reviews and articles. Lazy writing, but a fair label: the director of Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, The Kite Runner, and Stranger Than Fiction had never helmed anything with even 1/50th the action of a Bond film. Hell, he admitted that he wasn't even a Bond fan. So Dan Bradley, who'd done 2nd unit for the last two Bourne movies, was brought on board. Was this "copying Bourne," or just trying to get the best person available to help an inexperienced action director, or both? I report, you decide...

One commenter to any earlier post noted that Bond directors rarely direct the action sequences, as those are left to the 2nd unit. Well, sure...but the director's name is on the film, he gets the Oscar nominations and all the credits. so he damned well had better be ready to take some of the blame. Furthermore, hopefully he's communicated his vision of what he wanted to the 2nd unit, and again hopefully he's been a participant in the editing process, and decides what gets used.

And Marc Forster lacked the vision, I think. If you're going to do the "Bourne-style," you HAVE to have a certain command of the grammar of an action film, the basic vocabulary to discipline the seemingly undisciplined rapid shots and edits into telling a coherent story. Whether or not you like the Bourne style, I don't think you can argue that director Paul Greengrass--using the same 2nd unit director--did a far superior job of storytelling in that mode. As disorienting as the camera may be in Bourne 2 and 3, you are rarely lose track of how many participants there are, over who is where and what's going on. Greengrass may give you micro-cutting and a shaky camera, but he also gives you establishing shots and beginnings and middles and endings of actions, gives you shots besides extreme close-ups, and manages to tell the stories of his action sequences.

But in QoS, Forster gives us a Bourne vocabulary, without the Bourne grammar. Forgive the patronizing analogy, but he's like a child who knows some words but doesn't know how to structure a sentence with them yet. We shouldn't have to keep guessing about how many cars are involved in the teaser chase. We shouldn't constantly be confused about where Bond is in relation to Mitchell during the rooftop chase, and you shouldn't have to guess what the hell Bond fired his gun at during that chase (it was Mitchell's head, in frame for about 1/100th of a second and never established with a pre or post firing shot). We shouldn't be puzzled about how many agents Bond is fighting in the elevator. We shouldn't be completely baffled when Mitchell turns rogue during the interrogation scene...it shouldn't take multiple viewings to be able to follow the action and realize that it was White who took a bullet and that was M running off to the staircase.

Prime example: the boat chase scene in Haiti. One boat is left pursuing Bond. He pulls back on the throttle so the evil boat jumps up on top of his (since that knocks Bond on his ass and knocks out Camille, maybe that's not such a bright move, but never mind that...). Bond grabs a grappling hook on a rope (?), attaches it to something (?) on the enemy boat. Suddenly, the enemy is hurled up in the air and capsized. After many viewings, I still have no clue as to what happened here, because Forster has failed the most basic visual storytelling. We never see what the other end of the rope is attached to, we are never shown what Bond attaches the grappling hook to, we never see the physical reaction of something acting on the enemy boat. Oh, sure we can guess that maybe an anchor might have been on the other end of the rope...but a) we are never shown the anchor b) we never see Bond put the anchor into the water c) an anchor that attaches to a boat by grappling hook? Forster NEVER shows us what happens here, never sets it up, never follows through, never bothers communicating with the audience exactly what's going on. Think about that: 007 makes one of his trademark clever escapes, and the audience is left to guess for themselves what actually occurred.

All of that, and more, happens because Forster doesn't seem to know how to put the parts together in a way that effectively conveys the action. Like Michael Apted in TWINE, he doesn't seem to be able construct an action sequence that the audience doesn't have to put together for themselves. So my gut feeling is, even if they hadn't decided to Bournify things up, his action scenes wouldn't have been up to snuff. Heck, maybe that's even why they Bourned things up--to cover up the inadequacies, on the theory that a confused audiences might not notice the cracks and poor storytelling in the action scenes.

As to the Bourne style itself? Well, I'll leave that to another essay. But I will say that when you have a series whose reputation is for brilliant stunt work, why would you want to obscure that? Does anyone believe the parkour scenes in CR06 would have been better shot in the Bourne style...or the stairwell fight? Even if the Bourne style had been properly shot, wouldn't the cathedral fight in this movie have been even more thrilling if shot in the "Martin Campbell style?"

Forster also has the annoying quirk of inserting seemingly random shots into even the simplest of scenes, for no apparent reason. When Beam and Greene are talking on the plane, in the middle of their conversation we're given a close up of a glass being filled with liquor by the stewardess. This is puzzling, as everyone has just been served their drinks, and we never see the flight attendant or the drink again. Was this symbolic something, and I'm just too stupid to see it? Or is Forster's attention span so short that he can't even get through a simple expository conversation scene without having to wander off into "art house" territory? During the rooftop chase, do we need a lingering shot of the elderly woman who is upset that her cherries have fallen? That shot lasts longer than any of the cuts of actual action during the chase! The horse race--what, exactly, is that apropos of? When Mitchell's apartment is being examined, when M is worried that Quantum might actually have people "everywhere," we get a fairly lengthy shot of Bond staring at one of the CSI's searching the place. In a normal movie, that would mean Bond suspects him of being a turncoat, or the guy's about to unveil a valuable clue. Nope...in QoS it just means that Forster gets bored filming conversations and has to insert random shots.

And so in the lead-up to the finale, instead seeing exactly how Bond and Camille manage to avoid the military guards and walk right up to the hotel unnoticed, we're treated to a 55-second montage of Medrano's men and Greene's crew walking up and down stairs and along corridors to the conference room. And walking. And walking. And walking...

And then there's the opera...or more specifically, Bond's fight during the opera. We dragged a friend along to one of my viewings. She's not particularly a Bond fan, not an action movie fan, but she is a fan of the more "cerebral" type movies. Her reaction to the opera montage interspersed with blips on Bond's fight? She didn't like it. Her reaction (paraphrasing): "I wanted to see the fight scene. I wanted to see Bond taking on these guys and being clever in a fight in a restaurant/kitchen. Why show us all of that opera when we really wanted to be watching the action? I just didn't see the point of that...That's not what a Bond film is supposed to be like." Thank you, Dawn. And note that, by being obscure about the action, Forster again mystifies his audience about what's actually transpiring. It starts off with Greene's thugs chasing Bond...but sometime during the gauzy montage, Guy Haines' bodyguard joins in. Why? When? How?!? Rather than share these petty details of what's actually happening in the plot, Forster feels it's more important to show us random scenes from Tosca (which has mysteriously leaped from Act I to the end of Act II and then into Act III...must have been a pretty long fight that he didn't show us). The opera business is a microcosm of Forster's QoS: Very pretty, great sets, well shot...but let's obscure the action and plot as much as possible in favor of some vague artistic statements.

And that's just a damn shame, because otherwise, Forster does a dynamite job as a director. Despite all my negativity above, in most respects he nails the scenes he has to. His scene composition, the angles and lighting, are gorgeous. The emotional scenes, the quiet scenes, are very effective, quite well done. Mathis' death, Camille asking Bond to kill her rather than endure death by fire, Bond's confrontation with Yusef...all fantastic. And he gets great performances out of the entire cast--an often neglected aspect of the director's job. It's jus unfortunate that for some important components of Bond movies--the action, the plot--Forster can't seem to summon up the same interest.

Well, that was a long digression. Back to the teaser...No intro, no dialogue, just a car chase. This is a very sparse, spartan teaser, no frills whatsoever. In fact, it feels perfunctory, more out of a sense of obligation than an attempt to make a mini-movie. There are two recent comparisons to make here. When TWINE was previewed, the original teaser (Bond killing the banker and escaping in Bilbao) was deemed not exciting enough, not spectacular enough, so they re-worked the whole opening of the movie. Obviously, they weren't concerned about that type of reaction a decade later. Not that there's anything wrong with a modest teaser--they have their place--it's just interesting to see how the standards have changed.

Secondly, well, it's not very Bondian, is it? There's no panache, or flair. There's nothing special that tells you "This is Bond," that this set piece couldn't be done in any other movie. If it weren't for the Aston Martin, there would be nothing to distinguish this scene from a dozen other action movies. Even in CR06's low key teaser, we meet Bond, we witness his dialogue with Dryden, we get a pretty good sense of 007's style and personality. This time around, we just one line of dialogue before a puzzling freeze frame (why??). QoS' teaser doesn't have a story to tell us, just an action scene to present us with. It's well done, but it's also as unambitious as hell in most ways.

Which brings me to the script. Paul Haggis reportedly finished his rewrite less than 2 hours before the screen writers' guild strike deadline, and I believe it, because this movie reads like an early draft. QoS is the shortest Bond film, and one reason is that it's not properly fleshed out. There are some very good bits, but there is also an awful lot that needs polishing, a number of good ideas that are just never fully developed. This is NOT the complete, confident screenplay we got in Casino Royale.

The first problem is the lumpy, uneven structure of the film. We get the nothing but action in the teaser. Then a couple of minutes of dialogue...then bang, another action sequence, the rooftop chase/cathedral fight. Then a few more minutes of exposition, then bang, Bond's fight with Slate. Then a bunch of exposition, and bang the boat chase. After that, though, we enter a long patch without any action--do you count the glimpses of a fight during the opera as an action scene? Bond taking down the two Bolivian cops? It's well over half an hour until the next full set piece, the plane chase. Then long pockets of conversation and desert-walking, a couple of ten second blips (the elevator fight and the CIA raid on the bar) that eventually lead--again, almost half an hour later--to the final set piece. It's very unevenly paced, with most of the action bits bunched up in the first half hour, and then a much more leisurely last 60 minutes.

The second problem is the script's complete lack of interest in resolving the plot lines it dredges up. Take for example, Mitchel, M's bodyguard. He turns on them at a critical juncture, and M goes on (and on) about how impossible it was, about how fully vetted the man was, how long he had been with her. How could they have made him go bad? Well, don't bother to wonder, because the movie doesn't really care. After Bond leaves for Haiti, not a single syllable is spent concerning Mitchell, not one!! After the big build-up of how and why, raising our curiosity, nothing...not even a shrug. Meanwhile, after all of the concern (and lingering shots) of the poor Bolivian people suffering from the drought, so you'd think the audience would get the catharsis of seeing some of their despair relieved. Nope. All we get is "What should I do? "Well, someone could blow up the dams" "Yeah, that's a thought" and walking off into the camera. That's it?!? Beam is removed from his job at the CIA--why? Virtually every plot and subplot--Mitchell, the Bolivian water crisis, everything--is just a prop that's never seriously dealt with. A complete, finished screenplay wouldn't leave these loose ends, or give us the impression that it just didn't care about all the issues it had raised.

Finally, the dialogue pales next to CR06. During filming Forster brought in Joshua Zetumer, who had written some spec scripts he had liked, to do some re-writes. Zetumer also "rewrote dialogue depending on the actors' ideas each day." Is that ever a good idea, outside of a Judd Apatow film? Does that ever work? Well, it certainly didn't work here. CR06 shined in its snappy, witty dialogue. In QoS, the dialogue rarely rises above the bare minimum needed for exposition. There are exceptions--Bond's conversation with Felix in the bar sparkles, Mathis gets some good lines. But otherwise, it's just terse, functional conversations. Bond probably gets fewer lines than in any movie since You Only Live Twice--and all too often it's of the same lifeless, monosyllabic quality.

As for the other characters, their lines are dry and repetitive at best--how many times do we need to have the "we have to business with villains" speech? How many times do Bond and M have to have the exact same conversation about trust and control and vengeance (the answer, 4). How many times does the dialogue seem to be written at right angles to itself, with conversations not making any sense? Given Forster's claim that everything in the script was shot, and that there's nothing on the cutting room floor, we've got to question the writers' ability to construct coherent dialogue.

Example 1: At MI-6, "Forensics Tech" comes up to M and Tanner in the corridor, saying they've done a thorough forensics examination and trace of all the bills in Mitchell's wallet. Tanner nods him off, saying "We're not in the mood." Except, of course, once they enter the room, Forensics tech then proceeds to tell them about what Tanner just claimed they weren't in the mood for. Huh?

Example 2: In Haiti, Bond gives his card to the thug. Elvis comes up, the thug explains what happened, Elvis calls the number. Then, mysteriously, Elvis derides the thug "Next time, pay more attention!" Huh? Attention to what?!? What are you talking about? There's obviously a line or two missing there, or else it's just dialogue that can't be bothered to hook up with itself.

OK, OK, enough with the negativity (except for some stuff in the Notes below). I just wanted to spell out, in some (annoying long) detail why the film falls short of being great. And that's important, because a number of the other elements in the movie do bring it to the edge of greatness.

Primarily among these is Daniel Craig's performance. He picks up this movie and carries it on his shoulders for 109 minutes. When a number of critics and friends have suggested that QoS doesn't "feel" like a Bond movie, it's vital that we have someone whom the audience can identify with as Bond to keep the movie grounded. Daniel Craig wrings every bit of humor, every bit of pathos, every bit of emotion that he can out of the script, and gives us a Bond that we can believe in, a man who is just trying to do his job but keeps killing people when circumstances warrant it. (My friend Dawn noted that whenever Bond was accused of killing someone he didn't--Haynes' bodyguard, Mathis--he never denies it...he just stays quiet and lets the credit be given to him, knowing that will build his reputation. And she says she's not a Bond fan...) He takes the few humorous lines and milks them quite wryly...it's too bad that the "teachers on sabbatical...who have won the lottery" line is subtitled, because I think some of the audience miss it, and it hilarious, especially Craig's delivery.

Watch his scenes with Camille in the sinkhole, when she relates her tale, and in the hotel blaze, when he understands her need not to die in that fashion. You can literally see the empathy and humanity returning to Bond's face, as he finally begins to come to life again after having been a relentless machine for most of the movie. His final scene with Mathis is heart-wrenching. Craig doesn't just hit a home run this time...he hits a grand slam.

And we're helped by the fact that Bond is still so damn good at his job. He's a good detective...he knows how to follow a trail, how to figure out what the next move should be. He's a master at improvising during a chase or a fight, and you can always see the wheels turning as Bond looks for the next move. Using a motorcycle to jump from boat to boat may seem silly, But Craig sells it. And of course, his breaking up of the Quantum meeting (or is it QUANTUM?) is a classic--although, on a picky note: the blond at the table had a list on her clipboard showing who got the special gift bags. Shouldn't that have been Bond's first stop, to get a complete list, rather than hoping everyone flees at his voice so he can get pictures? I'm just sayin'...

Speaking of Mathis, full props to Giancarlo Giannini for turning a tiny role in CR into a performance this good. Every time I've seen QoS, the audience gasps in shock and sadness when Mathis' body is revealed in the trunk...and that means he's made an impact on viewers, which is a pretty good indicator of how good he is here. He doesn't rise to the level of a Kerim Bay or a Draco, primarily because the script doesn't give him enough to work with. But his weary charm, his attempts to fill Bond's need for a father figure, and his sad death make him the most memorable supporting character since Columbo in For Your Eyes Only.

A number of people, particularly online, seemed upset at Bond leaving Mathis' body in a dumpster. Not me...I found it very appropriate, both as the only type of "funeral" Bond had available at the time, and as a reflection of his world view at the time. That's how Bond saw himself ending up some day. A beautiful (if ugly) scene.

Camille is a fine Bond Girl, even though the movie doesn't give her a ton to do, and has her vanishing for a good chunk in the middle. Olga Kurylenko actually pulls off a fine Spanish accent, and the tale of a Russian mother is enough to cover any gaps...and we're about 46 years too late to start complaining about Bond Girls' dodgy accents, anyway. She's as reckless as Bond, continually confronting Greene even though he wants her dead. Bond does have to rescue her a lot, but not because of basic incompetence, but because her drive for revenge has made her heedless of her own safety (sound familiar?). Her scene in the blazing hotel--magnificent.

Of course, all the talk is how she doesn't become another notch on Bond's Walther. It's not something that I'd like to see become a trend, but for these two characters in this particular movie, it's entirely appropriate. Plus, obviously it's a thankless task to have to be the Bond Girl after Vesper...don't hold that against her.

Mathieu Amalric makes a perfectly slimy villain, although the movie doesn't give him too much to do, either. Amalric is going for a Klaus Maria Brandauer/Largo vibe in Greene, the affected villain who lays on the quirky Euro-charm while casually being evil. But he has only one real scene with Bond--at the party--and Bond only has about 2 lines, both of which are essentially "excuse me, we must go" while Greene blathers on. There's not a lot of tension there, and so Greene's performance isn't really playing off our hero, which makes for a weaker villain than we need. To that extent, despite Amalric's best efforts, Greene comes off as not to different than Stromberg, another villain Bond barely meets--except Bond spent more time with Stromberg!! Greene only truly reaches a level of eerie hatefulness when Bond is holding him by his hair in the hotel fire, and Greene screeches, "It sounds like you've lost another one!" Now that's evil.

There's a seed of something there...in Haiti, Greene gives us the story of how he hates to have friends talk about him behind his back (a story that he doesn't finish..thank you screenwriters)...but it's never referred to again. Here we've got a prime opportunity for Bond to pull a "Sanchez" on him, a way to make their meetings sizzle with some intrigue and personality...but it's never mentioned again. Sigh...But other than walking around fund raising and doing dirty business dealings, Greene just doesn't actually do very much, does he?

As to his plot...lots of people complained about how Elliot Carver's plan in Tomorrow Never Dies was "only" about Chinese broadcasting rights. I wonder how those same people felt about a riveting exploration of Bolivian water rights? I don't mind "mundane" real-world plots, but it's clear that no one in this movie gives a rat's ass about the problems of the Bolivian people, so why should I? Bond would still be chasing after Greene even if this wasn't his scheme; Camille would still be using Greene to get to Medrano even if Bolivian utility rights weren't at stake. Even the movie itself doesn't give a damn about the issue, with it's shrug of "oh, yeah, I'll get somebody on that someday soon." All those artful shots of thirsty Bolivians with dry wells? They're all still just as thirsty at the end of this movie...MacGuffins are a great part of storytelling, but in QoS, the villain's entire plot is just a pointless MacGuffin. It's odd, to say the least, to see a movie that cares so little about the villain's goal.

As to QUANTUM? Well, that's still in the shadows, and I have no real problem with that. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. was still pretty shadowy early on, a behind the scenes player. Remember, we never actually met Blofeld until the fourth movie. And S.P.E.C.T.R.E. always had small schemes--blackmail, drug running, stealing secrets, toppling missiles--running long before their more ambitious efforts. So we should be patient (although it's hard, as few of us here were old enough to have to wait 2 years between movies for more revelations about S.P.E.C.T.R.E...we could just pop in the next tape or DVD). But I'll admit that it can be frustrating that we have so little indication of the group size, or goals, or aims. So far, we know that they recommend bankers to terrorists, put plants inside of government agencies, and try to buy up water rights. Not the most evil or thrilling resume we've ever seen...

Oh, and a tip for Quantum: just like in Thunderball, if you're a top secret organization that nobody even knows exists, maybe it's not a good idea to go around wearing jewelry advertising it. What are you going to say when somebody asks "Hey, Greene, what's the 'Q' for?" "uh...well, it's definitely not the logo of a super-secret evil organization!!"

Hey, what about henchmen?!? More to the point, are henchmen a dying art? For the second movie in a row, we really don't have ANY classic Bond henchmen. LeChiffre only had his silent girlfriend. Greene has Elvis and the silent Rutger Hauer wannabe...but Elvis doesn't do a damned thing the entire movie, except fall down the stairs!! He has perhaps two lines in English, he's not particularly menacing, he never gets a confrontation with Bond or Camille, and nothing he does is of any consequence to the plot. And the other guy has no dialogue, looks vaguely menacing but doesn't do anything besides carry a briefcase of money, and is killed with 10 other extras in a flash in the hotel garage.

Has the current Eon regime decided that classic Bond henchmen are passé? Have they decided after Diamondface Zao in Die Another Day that these characters are too comic bookish? Have the writers run out of ways to portray henchpeople besides trumped up bodyguards? Do villains need henchmen? Do Bond movies (if for no other reason than to give the villain someone to talk to)? Discuss...

Felix, Felix, Felix...I never really figured out why Eon adopted the "Felix-of-the-week" approach back in the Connery days. Not that it made much difference, because Felix was usually only there so Bond had somebody to explain the plot to, nothing more than a glorified Doctor Who companion. But see what happens when you put a real actor in the role, bring him back for consecutive movies, and actually make him a valuable (albeit minor) component of the plot? Like in CR06, Jeffrey Wright doesn't have a ton of screen time, doesn't get to actually figure in any of the action--but he steals his scenes anyway. Let's hope he's around for several more movies.

I luvs me some Judi Dench. And she does a masterful job of forcing a good performance through repetitive dialogue and odd plot contortions: really, M, the head of the British Secret Service, turns up in person for prisoner interrogations in Italy and Russia?!? Seriously?!? And reboot confusion: it's hard to hear her castigating Bond for using women when we recall in TND she's actually ordering Bond to use sex to get information out of old girlfriends. But those are merely quibbles. Dench rules.

And can I praise the living hell out of Bond's confrontation with Yusef? 007 waiting in the darkened room for Yusef brought things nicely full circle with the teaser in Casino Royale. The quiet intensity Craig brings to the scene is breath taking. Corrine's reaction is wonderful, and the quiet "thank you" she gives Bond as she leaves the room is one of the best things in the movie. No hyper editing, no unnecessarily obscure shots of inanimate objects, dialogue that explains things without lecturing, Craig exuding dry wit and menace...it's the best scene in the film, and almost makes up for the anti-climax in Bolivia.

There is a ton of really good stuff in Quantum of Solace. It continues the process of "James Bond Year One" effectively, many of the action bits are exciting (if difficult to follow), the performances are Grade A throughout, the location work is outstanding (and creative, not just relying on the old standbys, but taking us to new exciting places), there are some some exciting sets.

But the movie falls short of the greatness of Casino Royale, because the people in charge didn't have the vision or ability to fully implement their ideas. A director who didn't know action adopting an idiom that he can't handle, which hides a lot of the great action and stunt work; amateur writers creating dialogue on the fly, with off-putting results; a plot even those making the movie can't be bothered to care about. A movie that could have been as great as CR06 ends up being lesser in almost every way (although still enjoyable and good)...and the trend worries me.

People complain that QoS didn't "feel like" a 007 movie. Well, there's nothing wrong with a Bond film "feeling" different than what's gone before. I'm all for changing the game around once in awhile, for shaking things up, for trying new things. But there is a point where you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and it can be even worse when you're not doing it on purpose. Did they purposely make it not feel like a Bond movie, or did they just not know how? The movie sets out to do things Bourne-style, but in the process manages to give short shrift to many of the things that make Bond Bond. Was that intentional, or just because they didn't know what they were doing? Did they try to make a Bond movie as dour, terse, short and cold-hearted as possible? Or was it because nobody involved knew how to inject humor, or how to craft a plot that involved the audience, that fleshed out characters and motivations, that gives us Bond panache and "wow"? Many critics complained that the Monty Norman theme wasn't used more...well, there weren't that many moments in the film that justified it's use, frankly...there's not a lot in the film that calls for the "holy crap it's Bond!" music.

I wouldn't care as much, or have gone on for so long, if the core of the movie wasn't so good (hell, look how easy I was on Die Another Day). But wasted potential rankles me, and sloppy execution of good ideas annoys me. So don't get me wrong...I like the bloody movie. I just wish that, somewhere in the process, someone had taken a step back and said, "Can't we do this better?" And hadn't Eon better find someone who can before Bond 23?!?

SNELL"S RANDOM NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS:

**After Craig complaining that they shouldn't use Die or Death in the film's title, it's ironic that we end up with a theme song titled Another Way To Die. I don't hate the song, but I can't say that I particularly care for it. Like many a Jack White written song, it's heavy on rhythm, light on melody, which I'm not sure is right for a Bond theme. I'd like it better as a White Stripes song than a Bond theme, I think. And while I appreciate that they're trying to pastiche elements of many Bond themes, it feels like they just threw everything in a blender and set it "chop" instead of "puree," resulting in a chunky mess instead of a smooth song. Much like the movie, it feels not fully baked yet. And don't get me started on the lyrics: "Shoot 'em up/ Bang bang!" Really??? You're serious?!?

That being said, David Arnold manages to use elements of it extraordinarily well in the score...and I like the way he attempts to "localize" the score, altering the type of music to fit the area Bond is in. Thumbs up.

**In teaser, the cars shooting the hell out of the Aston Martin, and trying to drive Bond off the road--aren't they just as likely to kill Mr. White? Or did they care about that--"better for him to be dead than let him fall into enemy hands," perhaps?

**Note to mainstream critics who relentlessly whine about how "bad" a title Quantum of Solace is...shut up. Please. Like The Bourne Supremacy means anything...

**I don't usually complain about this type of thing...but what was this, bad wig theater? Gemma Arterton's wig was atrocious, and Olga's seemed to change in color and thickness from shot to shot. If I'm noticing wigs, you know they must be bad...(and what the hell was Fields wearing under that trench coat, anyway?!?)

**Speaking of Gemma, we have Strawberry Fields. Here's a memo to screenwriters--if you're going to make a joke of her name, it doesn't count unless you actually put that joke in the movie. If you're not going to put the punch line into the film, then why leave the "what's your first name" coyness in the script? If you decide that actual humor is wrong for the movie, than why call attention to your own almighty cleverness by revealing the joke in the credits? Commit, guys, commit...either give her the name or don't, no half way measures.

**So, Strawberry had time to take a note to the desk saying "run?" And it didn't refer to M, because Fields was dead by the time she showed up...so it had to be Greene or his men. So they left her time to take a note to the desk? Or did she just realize she was being followed?

**Part of the whole unresolved Mitchell plot was the $20 bill in his wallet, that led them to Slate.

First, they had been placing tracer bills in LeChiffre's payoff money. But, LeChiffre didn't work directly for Quantum, did he? In CR, Mr. White said "we just do the introductions, we don't vouch for him," implying that LeChiffre was an outsider. So how did his cash get into QUANTUM's hands?

Secondly, since we never find out even a scintilla of a clue about why Mitchell turned, what do we make of his having a single bill? Were they paying him...and he hid the rest of the money except for one $20?!? Does that mean they didn't have an emotional blackmail hold over him, as with Vesper and the plan for Corrine? Or did they do that only with females (or maybe Mitchell was gay and really into Yusef, too)? I just find it hard to see why Mitchell would have one and only one bill from the same batch used to pay Slate. Did Greene give him they assignment and Mitchell then say, "hey, bro, lend me a twenty?"

**The exciting touch table tops and hyperkinetic GUI on all of MI-6's computers (which seem pretty damned advanced for "5 minutes" after CR, but never mind). Are they sweet, or are they ultimately more distracting than regular old briefings/info dumps? Cool, or too Minority Report? Discuss.

**We obviously have to reevaluate parts of CR now that we know that Vesper's "boyfriend" was really a bogus dude. Now, obviously, there's no way LeChiffre could have known in advance his stock swindle would fail, he'd have to enter a big poker game, and MI-6 would infiltrate it and send an agent for the Treasury along. And there's no way QUANTUM could set up some whirlwind romance intense enough to sway Vesper in such a short period of time.

Which means they must have already planned to turn Vesper, and this opportunity came up. So what had they planned to have a rogue treasury agent do? Siphon them money? And having the exact right person in the exact right place is awfully convenient--unless they have a plethora of double agents, ready to be "activated" at a moment's notice. Maybe Yusef was a really busy guy...or they have an awful lot of seducers around. Q.U.A.N.T.U.M--meeting your evil male prostitute needs since 2006 (female, too, I would imagine).

Also, M showing up for White's interrogation was surely not planned far in advance, so rescuing White was an emergency tactic...so what was Quantum's plan for him?!?

**Wait a minute--vital secrets from Canadian intelligence?

Just kidding, Canadian friends. But seriously, a couple of Quantum members want to make this their top priority? What the hell does Corrine have access to??

**Whereas Bond had a godawful time tailing people in CR06, he never gets "made" here. However, this time around he's Mr. Butterfingers, dropping his gun gosh knows how many times. Better start carrying a back-up piece, James...

**Bond also is terrorizing Haiti, undoubtedly their top vehicle thief. In a brief span he steals a motorcycle, two boats, and a truck...He's a one man crime wave.

**More opera fu: Bond interrupts the Quantum discussion during the "Te Deum," which is at the end of Act I. Since Bond procured his earplug before the start of the show, what has he been doing for the last 45 minutes (at least)?

Also..the audience is hanging in the lobby, and the company is still unloading equipment and costumes? I don't think so...

**Why is Greene so upset about Haynes' bodyguard seeing his face? Greene was already seen by tons of people at the opera--he was greeted by name in the lobby, he was mingling with other guests...everybody would have already known he was at the show!! So why the secrecy? (answer: more sloppy writing...they had to have an excuse for Greene's man to shoot the bodyguard, so Bond could be blamed for it...)

**Both a fighter plane and a helicopter are chasing Bond's DC-3. Bond takes out the plane...but the copter is still there..what happened to them? It just vanishes after shooting the DC-3. Did they just assume Bond was dead (which would be odd, since they were the ones who insisted that the fighter plane confirm the kill)?

**How did Fields know when Bond was arriving in Bolivia? Even if the airline agent finked out and told MI-6 that Bond had wanted to go to La Paz, he spends an untold amount of time traveling to Italy. Mathis supposedly gets them new untraceable documents, and they fly a private jet down there. Was Fields just staking out the airport 24/7? Remember, she had never heard of Mathis, so it seems unlikely they traced his connections...so how did they know when and where to be waiting?!?

**So, MI-6 bought Mathis that gorgeous villa as an apology for torturing him when he was innocent?!? Uh, where do I sign up for that package?!? Torture away, guys...

**So when he's dying, Mathis tells Bond that "Mathis" was just his cover name. We don't learn what his real name was (thanks for the follow through, writers!!)...but that does make us think again about the possibility that "James Bond" is also just a cover name...that, like in the "comedy" Casino Royale, maybe it's just the cover name given to whoever is 007. Which means maybe this hasn't been a reboot, which would explain why we still have Judi Dench as M, because the "Brosnan" Bond died or retired, and "Craig" was promoted to his spot and given his name and number.

Gentleman, start your fan fic...

**The clumsiest and most-telegraphed deus ex machina ever: "What's that sound?" "Hydrogen fuel cells!!" "Sounds unstable." From that moment, the audience knows with metaphysical certainty that those cells will blow up the hotel during the climax. Really, is it possible to be less subtle?

**Speaking of which, is this the most anti-environmental Bond ever? What are our messages--"Don't trust environmentalists--they're really evil scumbags who want to rape the Earth more than ever" and "don't trust hydrogen fuel cells...they'll blow up your place real good!!"

**Okay, okay, we get it, "US=dickheads." Do we need to keep piling on? (And did we need to make Beam such a braying jackass?)

**I know the hotel in the desert was "secured..." but only 1 employee? That's ridiculous, but the only "civilian" we see is the receptionist/waitress (played by Charlie Chaplin's granddaughter!)...not even a janitor? The writers/director are transparently trying to minimize the number of civilian casualties from 007 and Camille's raid...but common sense tells us that a number of innocent people had to die as a result of their actions. This isn't a S.P.E.C.T.R.E. hollowed out volcano, it's a private hotel!! (Cue the Death Star discussion from Clerks...)

**Speaking of which, can I whine about something here? We have General Medrano rape the poor girl just so we'll hate him and won't be conflicted about Camille shooting him. Given that, it was pretty dickish of the filmmakers to just let her die, offscreen, wasn't it? When we last see her, her hands are bound, she's thrown to the floor, and in a hotel room being consumed by fire with no way out. I'll suggest there was no possible way she survived that, and if she did she no doubt perished in the desert.

Which is in keeping with the movie's treatment Bolivia in general--pretend we care, then forget about them when it's convenient...I just find it disturbing that we set someone up to be a rape victim just as a plot device, and don't even give them the dignity of an on screen death or rescue.

**Producer Michael Wilson said they put the "gun barrel" at the end of the movie "as a surprise." Uh...any other reason than just to f$%^ with us, Mike? Because that doesn't make a lot of sense...

**Marc Forster said the poker scenes in Casino Royale were "really slow." Seriously, how did he get to direct a Bond film?

**Bond Score 1, just Strawberry Fields, and sadly not forever. Cumulative Bond Score: 58.

And, as always (no pic yet)

JAMES BOND WILL RETURN IN THE HILDEBRANDT RARITY

That's my prediction, and I'm sticking with it...

The Poker of Casino Royale--Meadowlark Lemon?!?

It's no surprise that they decided to go with Texas Hold 'Em instead of baccarat in Casino Royale (2006). It didn't hurt that poker was booming in popularity. But poker is also a more accessible game for the general public than baccarat, and a game requiring more skill and strategy. So when re-introducing James Bond to a 21st century audience, Texas Hold' Em was an appropriate way to go.

But how good was the film's portrayal of poker? Well, after I spent far too long analyzing Kronsteen's chess game in From Russia With Love, you know I can't resist droning on for far too long about the poker scenes in CR06.

So how are they? Well, let's just say that, in a world a car can flip 7 times and the driver survive, and where parkour chases through construction sites are apparently an everyday occurrence, the poker we see played in CR isn't out of place.

Which is to say "heightened reality," exaggerated, melodramatic. As expected in a movie, They want to hype things up, make them more exciting. So you see people playing hands in ways that generally wouldn't be played that way, and you see showdowns that probably wouldn't happen. Two words best describe it--Harlem Globetrotters.

A couple of things to note. First of all, we never see the beginnings of hands..we never see any bets before the flop, and very few on third or fourth street. This makes it really tough to analyze how the hands are being played. Poker is a game of imperfect information, and one of the primary sources of information is looking at your opponents' betting patterns--how often they bet before the flop, what types of hands they're likely to stay in with, are they playing conservatively or aggressively. Frankly, this kind of observation is usually far more important than any physical tells, no matter what the movie tells us, and so we're not given a critical component needed to analyze the hands.

The other factor to consider is that, in Texas Hold 'Em, the average winning hand is in the one-pair to two-pair range. Such smaller hands aren't sexy, but they're what win hand after hand, and ultimately tournaments. Of course, players do get higher hands--but those hands are very often not played to completion, as the board or the betting pattern scares people away. Compare that with CR, where of all the poker hands where we see the cards, the lowest winning hand is three of a kind (three aces, no less). That, my friends, is heightened reality.

The first hand we see played is LeChiffre against the "dear general." We can't see most of the cards...all we can make out is the King turned up on the river. The Asian woman folds after that card is turned up, but before anyone has bet...that's wrong! You never fold until somebody bets, because it's possible everyone will check and you'll get a free look at the river!!

Meanwhile, LeChiffre goes all in, telling the general he has two pair while the general has a 17.4% chance of making his straight. The percentage is right...of course, LeChiffre might have been bluffing at having two pair, too, just psyching the guy out. But going all in? This is the first of several times that CR displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what "all in" means. Every single time it happens, both parties put 100% of their chips into the pot. But that would never happen unless those two players had exactly the same number of chips!! One player never has to risk more chips than the other. So if Player A had 10,000 and Player B had 7,000...even if Player A called all in, he wouldn't commit more than 7,000 to the pot. So if the player who was ahead loses, he would still have some chips left. Yet even though he seems to have a lot more than chip than the general, LeChiffre pushes his whole stack into the middle. Dramatic, perhaps, but inaccurate. Yet every single time he hit an all in situation in this movie, both parties push in all their chips. That ain't how it works.

The next hand we see is Dimtrios vs. Bond, when Bond beats his trip kings with trip aces. And again, we're supposed to believe that Dimitrios' $5,000 plus his car just happens to precisely equal what Bond has in his stack. Plus, Bond splashes the pot, which is incredibly rude.

Then we come to the big tournament. The first hand we see is the one where Bond discovers LeChiffre's tell, the physical gesture he makes when he's bluffing (to get picky, you wouldn't be able to figure that out just from one instance...maybe it was just a random gesture. You'd have to see him bluff multiple times because you could say for certain that was his tell). Now, after the hand, Bond explains to us that LeChiffre didn't have the best hand until "the last card. The odds against were 23-1, and he'd know that. When he did his first raise he had nothing. Winning was blind luck."

Man, there are so many things wrong with that statement. First of all, when LeChiffre first raised he had a a pair of deuces in the pocket...not the greatest hand, surely, but not nothing...it was a semi-bluff, at best. After the river, LeChiffre had two pair, deuces and nines, most certainly not nothing (except in this movie, where winning with anything less than 3 aces is apparently considered unmanly). And when Bond says the odds against were 23-1, he's just plain wrong. The odds against turning two pair into a full house on the river are only 10.5-1, not 23-1 (the writers obviously were mixed it up with the odds of turning a single pair into 3 of a kind on the river, which are 22-1). We don't know what hand Bond hand, because he mucked after LeChiffre turned over his full house (Three 9s? A flush?). But based on Bond's claim to have discovered LeChiffre's tell, and his explanation of what went on in the hand, I can't say I'm too confident in his understanding of hold 'em.

The next hand we see is the one where LeChiffre busts Bond. Once again, we see the all-in confusion, with both Bond and LeChiffre putting the entirety of their stacks into the pot. And Bond splashes the pot again, that rude little bugger. And a KKKAA full house being beaten by four Jacks? Heightened reality, my friends, just like jumping from crane to crane. Sure, it could happen...

The next hand we see (but only the end of) is actually a real poker hand, as LeChiffre's two pair aces and sevens with a queen quicker beats Leiter's same two pair with a jack kicker. I guess Felix isn't important enough to require an nearly impossible hand to beat him....

Than comes the final hand, the hands that is so over the top that it is to poker as the Harlem Globetrotters are to basketball. Again, they don't show us any betting aside from after the final card is turned up, but let's work backwards an reconstruct what we do know.

Four players left...Bond and LeChiffre have a hefty chip lead over the other two. The blinds are at at least one million dollars. Since Bond bets first, he must have been the small blind, so Fukutu was the big blind blind.

What they're deal (with chances of winning in parentheses after):
Dude 8h 8c (30.9%)
LeChiffre Ac 6h (21.3%)
Bond 7s 5s (12.6%)
Fukutu Ks Qs (35.2%)

Now, 7s 5s isn't the best hand, but it isn't as terrible as it seems, and can be quite dangerous with the right flop. Also remember, Bond doesn't know what the others have, so a 7s 5s against 3 random hands is roughly 23-26% to win. And since he was already partially committed to the pot as the small blind, calling the $500,000 while getting 7-1 pot odds wasn't a bad play. Problem: there was more betting, that put the pot up to $24 million, and we don't know if that betting was here (which probably would mean Bond was insane for calling a huge raise here...unless he raised?!?), or after the flop (everyone checked on the turn).

The flop: Ah 8s 6s

Presumably, at this point there's a spurt of betting, because during the turn, Mathes tells Vesper that there is $24 million in the pot already, which means each player has put in another $5 million worth. This is especially significant, because it means Fukutu and Dude have already put in at least half their stacks (they've committed $6 million this hand, and their all-ins are 6 and 5 million, respectively). At this point, one has to wonder why they aren't all in already. By waiting until 5th street to go all in, they allow anyone playing a draw to make their hand, instead of forcing them to make a decision earlier. Fukutu has 4 spades, but he can't be sure his will be the top flush, as the Ace of spaces is unaccounted for yet. So if he's already committed half his stack now, why not just go all in to encourage the others to fold? It's an in-between, wait and see strategy that is guaranteed to lose in the long run, as it does here. If you don't get your flush, you've wasted your six million. If you do and still get beaten by a higher hand, as happens here, same result. Dude has trip 8's, but with straight and flush possibilities on the board, he has an even stronger reason for trying to discourage the other players from taking more cards.

LeChiffe has two pair, including top pair, so it's reasonable for him to say in (even though, unbeknownst to him, he has the lowest odds of winning at this point). And Bond? He's in pretty decent shape...he has four to a flush, and an open-ended straight draw, not to mention the 2 shots at a straight flush. A couple of warning signs, though...even if he draws the flush, there's a pretty good possibility that his high spade of 7 wouldn't make it the highest flush, so it could still be a loser. Ditto with the straight...it's fully possible you could get the straight and lose to a higher straight, or a flush. But he's a chip leader, he has a 50% chance of winning against 3 random hands (and a 28% chance against these actual hands) and the implied odds of later rounds of betting make putting $5 million into the pot justified for an aggressive player.

The turn: 4s.

That's it, game over. Bond has his straight flush, no one else can have one based on that board, it's game over. Everyone else is drawing dead. All 007 needs to do now is suck as much money out of everybody as possible. He wisely leads with a check...but the others? Fukutu has made his flush. It's very likely it's the highest flush, so why check? Why let everyone see a free card, which might beat you? Since the board hasn't been paired yet, no one can have a full house--yet. Here's where you go all in, to protect yourself from getting beaten by a later card. But he passively checks, allowing Dude and LeChiffre to make their boats (yeah, he still would have lost to Bond...but the odds were against it, and when you have a possible nut flush and are low on chips, you have to protect it!!). Dude and LeChiffre wisely check--they have to consider that someone might have a straight or flush based on that board, and if they're going to give you a free card when you've already got trips or two pair, don't argue.

The river: As

Fukutu has the nut flush, but now the board is paired, so there's a chance of a full house. He should have gone all in two rounds ago, and definitely last round. Dude has a boat 8's full of aces, and he already has committed over half his chips, he has no choice but to call. LeChiffre's decision is interesting. He has the big boat, aces full of sixes...but it is conceivable that someone has a higher full house (if someone held A8). And you can tell he never really considers the unlikely chance that Bond held 5s 7s for the straight flush.

His decision to raise is interesting, though...since $6 million covered the bets of the other two, he was essentially wagering a $6 million side pot with James. Which is odd. In higher poker circles, you don't keep raising after the small stack has gone all in. Why give him a chance to increase his pile when he's on the verge of dropping out? Because everyone called Fukutu, for example, if he had happened to win he would have pulled down $47 million in chips and become the new chip leader, instead of being out. Realistically, in a situation like this, there's usually "implicit collusion" to just call, so as to eliminate another player.

And given Bonds' re-raise to all-in, warning bells should have gone off for LeChiffre. Remember, LeChiffre didn't know Bond had the straight flush, but he should have suspected the possibility that Bond might have that or a higher full house. Did he really think that Bond would go all-in at that point with just a straight or a flush?

So once again we have an all in situation where everybody throws all their chips in the middle, although either Bond of LeChiffre would have had some left after matching the others' stack. Once again Bond splashes the pot, the rude bastard--but LeChiffre does a little bit too.

And after we have the unbelievable spectacle of the final four players all going all in on one hand (it would never happen), it turns out that they reveal an ace high flush, a full house, a higher full house, and a straight flush. And it just happens that these hands are revealed in ascending order. Folks, it's possible to play Hold 'Em for decades and never see a straight flush. But to see four hands this high, all in one deal, conveniently in dramatic order...well, that's like getting hit with lightning while winning the lotto 5 times in a row. I'm certain the writers had to spend days coming up with a scenario where this could happen and not have everyone folding after the turn. Sheesh.

It's so overly melodramatic that, frankly,, it kills some of the tension from the game, which was very well-directed. And after Bond's lecture to Vesper that it's not the best hand that wins, that it's not a game of luck, and that you have to play your opponent, and not the hand--well, we never see Bond play a hand lower than trip Aces, and he wins the tournament by being dealt a straight flush. So Bond never got to show off these supposed poker skills, because he was always dealt these freakin' incredible hands that my grandmother could have won with!!

Worst of all...Bond tips the dealer with one of the chips at the end---it's worthless!! It's a tournament chip, which has no value outside of the tournament!! The money's not held by the casino, it's held by the Swiss bank!! James. you basically flipped off the dealer by giving him a worthless trinket!!

So, I like my Harlem Globetrotters analogy...yes, it's recognizable as basketball, and yes, it's as entertaining as heck...but don't try that stuff in the NBA, because it ain't gonna work, and someone's gonna get hurt. Same here...fun to watch, thrilling...but I wouldn't reserve James a seat at the World Series of Poker anytime soon....

Odds provided by the Poker Stove desktop application and this Wikipedia page.