Casino Royale's ending

highhopes

There's a good deal of speculation as to the movitations of Vesper, Mathis, Mr. White and LeChiffre: who was allied with who? Who was duping who? who got the money? didn't the suitcase with the cash float away in Venice? what was in the suitcase carried off by Mr. White?
These questions have been debated elsewhere, so let's not do that here. What I'm curious about is how do the fans feel about the writers leaving loose ends like this? Does it add or detract from your enjoyment of the movie? Personally, I like the idea. It makes me look forward all the more to Bond 22.

Tilly Masterson 007

The ending wasn't bad IMO.

Did I miss something or is Le Chiffre still presumed alive?

Hardyboy

I honestly didn't find the ending to be as "open-ended" as some have charged. When Mr. White was seen to take the money from the collapsing building (I don't think the suitcase floated away) and make his escape, I initially thought that would be the last we'd see of him and that he might emerge as the main villain in Bond 22. When Bond took Mr. White down at the end, I felt it essentially ended the movie: Bond gets the baddie and the money. The question of the identity of Mr. White's agency is left open, but this didn't bother me at all--SPECTRE received only a brief mention in Dr. No, and it wasn't until FRWL that the agency was fleshed out. Maybe we'll get the same sort of treatment in B22?

As for Mathis, I was annoyed by Bond's insistence that he be futher "sweated," but I'm sure he'll be found innocent; and where Le Chiffre is concerned, I'm pretty sure he worked for Mr. White's group and that he is as dead as dead can get.

scottmu65

Tilly Masterson 007 wrote:

The ending wasn't bad IMO.

Did I miss something or is Le Chiffre still presumed alive?

well he was shot in the head, that usuall does the trick

Sir Hillary Bray

Hardyboy wrote:

I honestly didn't find the ending to be as "open-ended" as some have charged. When Mr. White was seen to take the money from the collapsing building (I don't think the suitcase floated away) and make his escape, I initially thought that would be the last we'd see of him and that he might emerge as the main villain in Bond 22. When Bond took Mr. White down at the end, I felt it essentially ended the movie: Bond gets the baddie and the money. The question of the identity of Mr. White's agency is left open, but this didn't bother me at all--SPECTRE received only a brief mention in Dr. No, and it wasn't until FRWL that the agency was fleshed out. Maybe we'll get the same sort of treatment in B22?

As for Mathis, I was annoyed by Bond's insistence that he be futher "sweated," but I'm sure he'll be found innocent; and where Le Chiffre is concerned, I'm pretty sure he worked for Mr. White's group and that he is as dead as dead can get.

I did find the ending to be open-ended, and loved it precisely for that reason.

I'm guessing (hoping, actually) that Bond doesn't kill White, but rather "sweats" him for info that he will use to track down the true bigwigs of "The Organization" in Bond 22.

I'm not sure Le Chiffre technically worked for White's group, but he certainly was their banker of choice. White says something to the Ugandans along the lines of, "We found him for you, but the choice to use him is yours." At the end of the day, the money Le Chiffre lost belonged to White's group (who were bankrolling the Ugandans among others) so to White he was both a thief and and embarrassment.

I agree with Hardy on Mathis. I believe he will be found innocent and was annoyed with the ambiguity on this point. However, I cannot get around Le Chiffre's line regarding Mathis. What possible reason would he have to say that if it weren't true? Maybe to take away any suspicion in Bond's mind that Vesper was the traitor, but aside from that, I can't make sense of it.

Gassy Man

Well, I'm actually glad that Bond doesn't yet trust Mathis -- the fact that he's still suspicious elevates this script above the usual juvenile fare that masquerades as a spy story nowadays. But why hasn't MI6 analyzed the powder Mathis mixed with Bond's drink yet? I suppose that Vesper's email to Bond will clarify who was working for whom, and I'm quite excited about Bond going up against a SPECTRE-like criminal organization in the next film. I even like the fact that they picked actors and created characters that seemed genuinely threatening to play their respective parts. I'm hoping people even worse are waiting in the next film for Bond to dispatch.

Mikep99

What I found interesting was when Bond was recovering from the torture and Mathis was there. Not 2 seconds into Mathis being there some guys took him away. Who were those people? Was that Mi6? who knows.

I liked the ending. As I have said it before, I didn't realize that it was the ending to be honest with you. I guess I am so into Bond, they could've continued for another 2 hours before I would notice so much time had passed. To be honest, I may be naive but the ending caught me by surprise because I didn't expect it to end.

scottmu65

i know what you mean about the ending, i didnt know when it was going to end, there were a number of places i thought it was about to end, was a brilliant ending for me as i was geting impatient waiting for the "bond, james bond" line, i thought it was a fantastic line to end the movie on

General_Ourumov

I thought the ending was bloody awful.

Le Chiffre died far too soon, without any kind of duel with Bond (other than the card game itself), which left me feeling that he didn't get his comeuppance - very unsatisfying. Mr White, to me, was not at all an intriguing or interesting villain - he just looked rather forgettable and weedy.

I like a resolution at the end of a Bond film.

Gassy Man

You probably wouldn't like the novel then, either, as the story structure is similar.

I applaud the producers eschewing the standard by-the-numbers formula of plot and pacing. That LeChiffre dies before the "countdown" phase of a standard action plot works because A) it's surprising (unless you read the book), and appropriate because "Casino Royale" really isn't about Bond defeating LeChiffre. It's about Bond coming into his own after enduring both trials of the body and the heart. I only wish they could have enhanced the "heart" portion with a little more story.

jbfreak

I thought the ending was fantabulous! There were so many times before that it could have ended and then kept on going to give you that added suspense. Plus, I think that it was open ended enough to make way for a very well done Bond 22.

lavabubble

General_Ourumov wrote:

Le Chiffre died far too soon, without any kind of duel with Bond (other than the card game itself), which left me feeling that he didn't get his comeuppance - very unsatisfying.

I saw this interview where Mads was talking about his fight scenes with DC - would I ever like to see those scenes!!

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4320

MI-6 AGENT 003

I don't mind loose ends in the ending as long as the they are address in the next film. If they ignore them or just give us a quick blurb then I'll be a little ticked. It's not like CR is a stand alone film, it's part of a long running film series so questions that go unanswered would bother me! I thought the ending was pretty good though.

s96024

It's a love hate relationship for me. They do this in programs like spooks and the one that comes to mind the most is 24. Yet I absolutely love 24. At the time i'm really annoyed and think "Theres no way I can wait a year+ to find out what happens. But then I get over that stage and when it returns it builds the excitement before i've even seen it. I think this is the case with CR as well.

Moore Not Less

Personally, I would have preferred a more conclusive ending. Now it means a two year wait with no guarantee that all the remaining questions will be addressed in Bond 22 never mind answered. And even if they are all answered there's no guarantee they will be to one's satisfaction.

I know, glass half empty instead of half full.

s96024

I suppose a 2 year wait is probably too long and many people will have forgotten probably.

highhopes

Moore Not Less wrote:

Personally, I would have preferred a more conclusive ending. Now it means a two year wait with no guarantee that all the remaining questions will be addressed in Bond 22 never mind answered. And even if they are all answered there's no guarantee they will be to one's satisfaction.

I know, glass half empty instead of half full.

You're right about getting them answered to everyone's satisfaction -- I don't know if that's even possible under the best of circumstances. But I fully expect them to make a reasonable attempt to explain the Vesper-Mathis-Mr. White relationship. Otherwise I'll be a little disappointed. But I trust Eon and the gang understand that they have created a mystery. I don't see how they can fail to explain it.

blueman

Oh I bet we get something in Bond 22, I mean the only rumor so far is about...well, it's about that. Seems somebody is already thinking about it over at EON...

carl_kanin

According to Mathis i think he was one of the bad guys. It seems like it really was him that tipped Le Chiffre about Bond knowing his sign of bluffing. And when Bond wins the pokergame, he eats dinner with Vesper who says "mathis needs me" and she goes to meet him - she gets caught.

I think the end was kind of ****ty. As mentioned before, it could've ended anytime earlier, and i think they took it too far.
Near the end, it seems like Vesper and Bond are having a happy-ending relationship, but then Vesper turns out to be one of the baddies, which i don't get at all. She even had the chance to lock herself out of the cage, but chose not to, and said in an all strange voice "i'm sorry james". I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me how she was suddenly with the bad guys, and why she turned so strange in the end. Thanks.

s96024

She had regretted it and was in love with james, but realised she couldn't live with herself.

Gassy Man

The book provides a more throrough explanation, mostly in the form of a letter. It's hinted throughout the story that Vesper may or may not really be on Bond's side, but her suicide and subsequent note reveal where her true loyalties are.

Loeffelholz

Gassy Man wrote:

The book provides a more throrough explanation, mostly in the form of a letter. It's hinted throughout the story that Vesper may or may not really be on Bond's side, but her suicide and subsequent note reveal where her true loyalties are.

Looks like the equivalent of a 'suicide note' might be shown in #22...very promising, that.

Gassy Man

I think so, though I would have preferred a voiceover in this one from the letter while Bond is looking for Vesper. I think her suicide would have been even more poignant if we would have her her admission that she'd betrayed Bond butloved him. Then, we she closes the door and descends, we'd all know with a frightening certainty what she is about to do.

Loeffelholz

Interesting to note that Eon have never really 'layered' a narrative in such a way, which has become very common in film---just as they never do other rudimentary devices such as flashbacks, etc...this internet video from Vesper, in #22, is as close as they've really ever gotten, aside from passing dialogue references to previous series entries.

blueman

I always think there's a nice versimilitude about films that follow a strict linear narrative. The other kind can be fun, bouncing around a lot (KISS KISS BANG BANG leaps to mind...fun fun film ), but Bond seems fine as the former. The video from Vesper as suggested there might be in Bond 22 would be a swell kinda bridge, I'm really hoping there is something like that ahead.

Oh, and I've always been annoyed by those little references to past Bond films, can't think of one that means anything outside of Lazenby sitting at his desk going through his past as a 00 agent.

Gassy Man

Loeffelholz wrote:

Interesting to note that Eon have never really 'layered' a narrative in such a way, which has become very common in film---just as they never do other rudimentary devices such as flashbacks, etc...this internet video from Vesper, in #22, is as close as they've really ever gotten, aside from passing dialogue references to previous series entries.

Well, the first kill in "Casino Royale" essentially is in the form of a flashback, Loeff. But you're right that the films follow a fairly strict linear narrative structure.

Loeffelholz

In the broader sense, of course, one can postulate that CR itself is a flashback---but within the context of the picture, the PTS happens first, before anything else in the picture; ergo, not a flashback in the strict sense of the word.

The good news is that Eon seem at least willing to examine different storytelling devices now.

Gassy Man

Well, it's a flashback in that the action of the first kill is intercut with the second kill. Remember, it opens with the whole "Prague" thing, then cuts back to the bathroom, which happened earlier than the second kill, then cuts back and forth between the "present" of the PTS, and then ends with the first kill.

Loeffelholz

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, it's a flashback in that the action of the first kill is intercut with the second kill. Remember, it opens with the whole "Prague" thing, then cuts back to the bathroom, which happened earlier than the second kill, then cuts back and forth between the "present" of the PTS, and then ends with the first kill.

You're right of course; I'd forgotten that, and fair enough---the first time such a thing has ever happened in the series. This struck me, when I first read the script, as terra incongnita...

It is, truly, a Brave New World :007)

Gassy Man

You know, though, while I'm not against evolving the Bond films to something better narratively -- whatever that might be -- I'm not opposed to staying more traditionalist, either. My hope is that whatever strategy they have for creating a narrative, they go beyond simply going through the motions of formula in the writing, acting, and execution, as has, in my opinion, too often been the case.

The great thing about "Casino Royale" is that this feels to me like the first production since the Connery days where all cylinders were firing. While I don't think "Casino Royale" quite has that final elusive ingredient that made the Connery films so magical, it certainly does strive to go beyond what we've come to expect. Bravo to that.

Species 8472

I thought the ending was absolutely superb.

A strange mixture of disappointment that the film was ending and 'I CAN'T WAIT!' delicious anticipation for the next one. I want to see all the loose ends not tied up so much as developed. To tie them up would be way too cute and unsatisfying and not what this Bond is promising for the future.

All I could think was "'Casino Royale II'?" I guess they might, they don't have any more books to film, and I'm guessing that whichever book came after Casino Royale has been done before. So why not CRII?

It's the first Bond I've seen at the flicks (my first ever was 'Live And Let Die'), that I absolutely MUST go see again.